alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

**WABCO HOLDINGS INC.**

**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 Annual Report of WABCO Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Jacques Esculier, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 

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

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as ofand for the periods covered in the Report. 

 

Dated: February 24, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10970]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6608]


Secretary of State's Determination Under the International 
Religious Freedom Act of 1998

Summary: The Secretary of State designation of ``countries of 
particular concern'' for religious freedom violations.
    Pursuant to Section 408(a) of the International Religious Freedom 
Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-292), as amended (the Act), notice is hereby 
given that, on January 16, 2009, the Secretary of State, under 
authority delegated by the President, has designated each of the 
following as a ``country of particular concern'' (CPC) under section 
402(b) of the Act, for having engaged in or tolerated particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, 
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan.
    The Secretary simultaneously designated the following Presidential 
actions for these CPCs:
    For Burma, the existing ongoing arms embargo referenced in 22 CFR 
126.1(a), pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
    For China, the existing ongoing restrictions on exports to China of 
crime control and detection instruments and equipment, under Public Law 
101-246 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990 and 1991, 
pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
    For Eritrea, the existing ongoing arms embargo referenced in 22 CFR 
126.1(a), pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
    For Iran, the existing ongoing restrictions on United States 
security assistance in accordance with section 40 of the Arms Export 
Control Act, pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
    For North Korea, the existing ongoing restrictions to which North 
Korea is subject pursuant to sections 402 and 409 of the Trade Act of 
1974 (the Jackson-Vanik Amendment), pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of 
the Act;
    For Saudi Arabia, a waiver to ``further the purposes of the Act,'' 
pursuant to section 407 of the Act;
    For Sudan, the use of the voice and vote of the United States to 
oppose any loan or other use of the funds of international financial 
institutions to or for Sudan, consistent with section 1621 of the 
International Financial Institutions Act, pursuant to section 402(c)(5) 
of the Act; and
    For Uzbekistan, a 180-day waiver to ``further the purposes of the 
Act,'' pursuant to section 407 of the Act.

    Dated: May 5, 2009.
Kurt D. Donnelly,
Office Director, Office of International Religious Freedom, Department 
of State.
[FR Doc. E9-10970 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-18-P
EXHIBIT 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

                RFMSI SERIES 2007-S3 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th
day of March 2008.


By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:    Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:   Executive Vice President
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of Corporate Property Associates 17  Global
Incorporated.
 /s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer   1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of Corporate Property Associates 17  Global
Incorporated.
 /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer   CPA®:17 2007 10-K 54
#### Maurice Oparaji, Appellant, v The New York Mortgage Company, LLC, Respondent.

Submitted April 6, 2009;

decided June 11, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely. The prior motion for leave to appeal made to the Appellate Division was untimely *(see*Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 12:3, at 436-437 [3d ed rev]).

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
#### Charleston & Savannah Railway Co. *v.*Varnadore.

1. Though the amount of the verdict is large, it is not so large as to justify the imputation of bias or prejudice; and the presiding judge having approved the finding, this court, while not fully concurring, has no legal power to interfere.

2. Though the evidence was directly conflicting, it was the function of the jury to settle the conflict. *Judgment affirmed.*

July 23, 1894.

Action for damages. Before Judge MacDonell. City court of Savannah. July term, 1893.

The suit was for illegal ejection from a passenger-train. The jury found for plaintiff $800: Defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and excessive in amount. The motion was overruled. The evidence was conflicting. For plaintiff it appeared, that after he had paid his fare the conductor approached him the second time for it, and although assured by him and his companion that it had been paid, insisted that it had not, and said to plaintiff, “You lie; you have not paid your fare,” and “if do not pay it again, I will have to put you off.” As plaintiff and his companion were getting off (his companion going with him through choice), the conductor said, “You stinking, rascally scoundrel.” The conductor first insisted that neither of them had paid their fare, but recalled the fact that plaintiff’s companion had paid, the latter saying he had paid mostly in nickels. But few passengers were on the car, all strangers to plaintiff. The ejection occurred about two miles from Coosahatchie. Plaintiff and his companion walked to Coosahatchie, and as there was no convenient place to stop there, they walked to Rigland, a distance of about twelve miles, where they took the train at five o’clock for Savannah. Plaintiff was about nineteen years old. For defendant the evidence was to the effect, that he did not *640pay his fare, and was ejected for this reason ; that the conductor stopped the train and put him off at a flag-station; and that no abuse of any kind was used towards him, nor indignity put upon him.

Erwin, duBignon & Chisholm, for plaintiff in error.

Garrard, Meldrim & Newman, *contra.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Watts, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 909]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), dated November 21, 2005, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, to be resentenced as a class A-II felony of*649fender pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, to be resentenced as a class A-II felony offender pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738; hereinafter the 2004 DLRA). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the 2004 DLRA does not permit the court to disturb the underlying class A-I felony conviction *(see People v Quinones,*22 AD3d 218, 219 [2005]). Skelos, J.E, Dillon, McCarthy and Eng, JJ., concur. *[See*10 Misc 3d 1052(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51923(U).]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      208,051
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,610
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          47,792
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        18,771
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   3,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,367
<COMMON>                                         5,983
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       59,498
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             24,512
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  89,993
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,800
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            78,324
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              27,159
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,337
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  76,754
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  280,367
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       63,161
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,690
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      56,437
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      58,127
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          5,034
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 118
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   5,152
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,992
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,160
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        104
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    3,056
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         1,611
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        1,552
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           5,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.F.O., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Date: February 16, 2010 |                  |
|------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                         |                  |
| Signature:                   | /s/ Larry Badgley     |   |
|                         | Larry Badgley, C.F.O. |   |

 

----
Exhibit 10.2


GUESS?, INC.


WRITTEN
DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED CASH AND EQUITY


AWARD
CRITERIA FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 


WITH RESPECT TO THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING FEBRUARY 2,
2008


Guess?, Inc.
(the “Company”) maintains an annual executive compensation program, pursuant to
which certain employees of the Company are eligible to receive cash bonuses and
equity incentive awards, including stock options, restricted stock, restricted
stock units and/or performance shares (“Equity Incentives”), upon achievement
of pre-established performance goals.  Any Equity Incentives awarded under
the executive compensation program will be granted pursuant to the terms of the
existing Guess?, Inc. 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, previously approved by the
shareholders of the Company on May 10, 2004 and filed April 14, 2004
as Exhibit A to the Company’s 2004 Definitive Proxy Statement, as amended (the “2004
Plan”).  Any cash bonuses awarded under the executive compensation program
will be granted pursuant to the terms of the 2004 Plan or the existing Guess?,
Inc. Annual Incentive Bonus Plan, previously approved by the shareholders of
the Company on May 10, 2005 and filed April 15, 2005 as Appendix A to the
Company’s 2005 Definitive Proxy Statement, as amended.


On
March 19, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company established performance goals under the annual executive compensation
program for the current fiscal year ending February 2, 2008 for its executive
officers.  The performance goals vary by individual and are based on
earnings per share of the Company or particular segments thereof, operating
earnings by segment or, in certain cases, gross margins by segment.  The
performance goals with respect to the individuals that may be designated as Named
Executive Officers in the Company’s 2007 Proxy Statement are based on (i) for
Paul Marciano, Chief Executive Officer, total Company earnings per share and
licensing operating earnings, (ii) for Maurice Marciano, Chairman of the Board,
Carlos Alberini, President and Chief Operating Officer, Dennis Secor, Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Michael Relich, Senior Vice
President and Chief Information Officer, and Stephen Pearson, Executive Vice
President and Chief Supply Chain Officer, total Company earnings per share, and
(iii) for Nancy Shachtman, President of Wholesale, earnings per share for North
American operations and North American wholesale gross margin (adjusted for
specified direct expenses).  Upon achievement of such pre-established
performance goals, incentive amounts will be payable in pre-established
combinations of cash, stock options and restricted stock or performance shares.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee,

versus

KAREEM TOMBLIN,

Petitioner - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-238-3-V)

Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Tomblin, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kareem Tomblin appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Tomblin, No. CR-92-238-3-V (W.D.N.C.

Dec. 4, 2001). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4048 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4048

   To prohibit Federal funding for the Organisation for Economic Co-
                       operation and Development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 14, 2006

  Mr. Inhofe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To prohibit Federal funding for the Organisation for Economic Co-
                       operation and Development.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Exit the OECD Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FUNDING FOR THE ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-
              OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
expended to fund activities or projects undertaken by the Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terry W. STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-6151.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2009.

Decided: May 5, 2009.

Terry W. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Theodore Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry W. Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner sat*161isfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Susan Cambizaca, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided September 8, 2009

Reported below, 57 AD3d 701.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*12 NY3d 715 (2009)].
[Grant Thornton Logo]   Accountants and Business Advisors **REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**Board of Directors and Shareholders Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc, We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria ("Management's Report"), that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential and commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)--(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)--(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)--(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)--(x) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)--(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects. **/ s /   G r a n t   T h o r n t o n   L L P**San Diego, CA February 6, 2008 12340 El Camino Real Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92130   T     858.704.8000 F     858.704.8099 www.grantthornton.com Grant Thornton LLP US Member of Grant Thornton International