alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.13    
    


                        ,
2004 


Newbridge
Securities Corporation

I-Bankers Securities Incorporated

c/o Newbridge Securities Incorporated

1451 West Cypress Creek Road

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 



	Re:
	Coastal
Bancshares Acquisition Corp. 




Gentlemen:



        This
letter will confirm the agreement of the undersigned to, collectively, purchase warrants ("Warrants") of Coastal Bancshares Acquisition Corp. ("Company") included in the units
("Units") being sold in the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Each Unit is comprised of one share of Common Stock and two Warrants. The shares
of Common Stock and Warrants will not be separately tradeable until 90 days after the effective date of the Company's IPO unless I-Bankers Securities Incorporated and Newbridge
Securities Corporation (the "Representatives") inform the Company of their decision to allow earlier separate trading. 


        Each
of the undersigned agrees that this letter agreement constitutes an irrevocable order for the Representatives to purchase for the undersigned's accounts within the twenty
trading-day period commencing on the date separate trading of the Warrants commences ("Separation Date"), collectively, up to 1,000,000 Warrants at market prices not to exceed $0.65 per
Warrant ("Maximum Warrant Purchase"). The Representatives (or such other broker dealer(s) as the Representatives may assign the order to) agrees to fill such order in such amounts and at such times as
it may determine, in
its sole discretion. The Representatives further agree that they will not charge the undersigned any fees and/or commissions with respect to such purchase obligation. 


        The
undersigned may notify the Representatives that all or part of the Maximum Warrant Purchase will be made by an affiliate of the undersigned (or another person or entity introduced to
the Representatives by the undersigned (a "Designee")) who (or which) has an account with the either of the Representatives and, in such event, the Representatives will make such purchase on behalf of
said affiliate or Designee; provided, however, that the undersigned hereby agrees to make payment of the purchase price of such purchase in the event that the affiliate or Designee fails to make such
payment. 



	 	Very truly yours,
	

 	

 
	 	
 Cary M. Grossman
	

 	

 
	 	
 W. Donald Brunson













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.13
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Matthew A. Engel, 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 Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2, Asset-Backed
     Certificates, Series 2007-2 (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 the 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 required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
     obligations under the servicing agreement 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 party: Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee.

    Dated:   March 28, 2008


    /s/ Matthew A. Engel
    Signature

    Senior Vice President /CFO
    (Senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 479 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 479

  To amend title 4 of the United States Code to prohibit a State from 
  imposing a discriminatory tax on income earned within such State by 
                      nonresidents of such State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2005

 Ms. Cantwell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 4 of the United States Code to prohibit a State from 
  imposing a discriminatory tax on income earned within such State by 
                      nonresidents of such State.

    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 ``Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF INCOME TAXES BY STATES ON 
              NONRESIDENTS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 127. Prohibition on imposition of income taxes by states on 
              nonresidents
    ``Except to the extent otherwise provided in any voluntary compact 
between or among States, a State or political subdivision thereof may 
not impose a tax on income earned within such State or political 
subdivision by nonresidents of such State.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 4 of 
title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new item:

``127. Prohibition on imposition of income taxes by States on 
                            nonresidents.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 35.2**

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “Administrative Agent”), dohereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005 (the“Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer, and theAdministrative Agent the following with respect to WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WAMU Series 2007-OA3 Trust for the 2007 fiscal year  (the “RelevantYear”): 

1.                  A review of the activities of the AdministrativeAgent during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

2.                  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,the Administrative Agent has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of March 1, 2008.

 

| /s/ Barbara Campbell Name:  Barbara Campbell Title:    First Vice President |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 15, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 15, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0013. JOYCELYN VANTERPOOL v. DAVID PATTON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

DR152051J5
**Exhibit 99.1**

**AGGREGATE      SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST DISTRIBUTIONS TO CERTIFICATEHOLDERS**

| Class | Interest     | Principal    | Losses | Ending                Balance |
|-------|--------------|--------------|--------|-------------------------------|
| 1A1   | 1,580,061.72 | 1,893,835.08 | -      | 36,633,164.92                 |
| 1A2   | 404,723.67   | -            | -      | 36,633,164.92                 |
| 1A3   | 1,885,929.81 | 3,328,796.96 | -      | 41,671,203.04                 |
| 1A4   | 2,790,404.75 | 4,246,543.37 | -      | 62,076,456.64                 |
| 1A5   | 515,904.39   | -            | -      | 11,963,000.00                 |
| 1A6   | 1,218,583.16 | -            | -      | 28,257,000.00                 |
| 1A7   | 110,615.67   | -            | -      | 2,565,000.00                  |
| 1PO   | -            | 16,126.85    | -      | 372,706.14                    |
| AR    | 0.50         | 100.00       | -      | -                             |
| 2A1   | 366,524.38   | 1,375,852.24 | -      | 8,276,147.77                  |
| B1    | 206,490.62   | 32,595.66    | -      | 4,588,404.33                  |
| B2    | 46,919.54    | 7,406.51     | -      | 1,042,593.50                  |
| B3    | 28,151.72    | 4,443.90     | -      | 625,556.10                    |
| B4    | 18,767.82    | 2,962.59     | -      | 417,037.40                    |
| B5    | 14,075.85    | 2,221.97     | -      | 312,778.05                    |
| B6    | 14,111.65    | 2,227.56     | 0.06   | 313,573.38                    |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40921 Summary Calendar

MASSEY L. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHERMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; DAVID WOODS, Public Information Officer for Sherman Police Department; THOMAS H. FLOWER, County Assistance Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.

________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-391

________________________________________________________ September 4, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Massey L. Moore, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , appeals the district court’s dismissal, as frivolous, of his civil rights lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moore moves for a court-appointed expert and for service of a subpoena duces1 Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997).

2 Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 (1977); McDonald v. Steward , 132 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 1998); Henthorn v. Swinson , 955 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1992)

.

3 See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983).

4 See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

5 See Moore v. Sherman Police Dep't et al. , No. 95-40374 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 1995). tecum. Moore’s motions are subject to rejection. We review the dismissal of an IFP complaint as frivolous for an abuse of
discretion. 1 Although prisoners have a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts, to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must show that his legal position was prejudiced by the alleged violation. 2 Moore has failed to show that his legal position was prejudiced by the defendants’ conduct. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his § 1983 complaint as frivolous. We conclude that Moore’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous, 3 and, accordingly, it is subject to dismissal. 4 Moore was previously warned that the filing of additional frivolous appeals would result in the imposition of sanctions. 5 A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Including the dismissal of this appeal, Moore has three6 See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996).

"strikes." 6 Therefore, except for cases involving an imminent danger of serious physical injury, § 1915(g) bars Moore from proceeding further under § 1915. He may proceed in subsequent civil cases under the fee provisions of § 1911-14 applicable to everyone else. MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; § 1915(g) SANCTION
IMPOSED.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 1

- 00 511

- CV

IN RE BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 17, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 20, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Then, on July 22, 2011,

the trial court entered a final judgment in the case, and August 1, 2011 relator filed a notice of

appeal. This court has determined that relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. Se e In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

- 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (holding that

to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must establish it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal)

.

Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010

- CVF

- 000798

- D1, styled BP America Production Co. v. Carlos M.

Zaffirini, Sr., et al.

, pending in the 49 th Judicial District Court

, Webb C ounty, Texas, the Honorable Jose A. Lopez

presiding.
#### In the Matter of Julissa A., Appellant, v Martin O., Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 139]

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2012, which denied appellant mother’s objection to an order, same court (Paul Ryneski, S.M.), entered on or about December 1, 2011, dismissing her petition for modification of an order of support entered upon her default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although appellant may petition the court to modify her child support obligation despite failing to first move to vacate the September 22, 2011 order, which was entered upon her default *(see Matter of Forte v Forte,*304 AD2d 577, 577-578 [2d Dept 2003]), the court properly dismissed the modification petition. Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a substantial change in circumstances since the prior support proceeding which took place approximately one week before *(see Matter of Figueroa v Herring,*61 AD3d 976, 977 [2d Dept 2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 703 [2009]; *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Campos,*291 AD2d 203, 204-205 [1st Dept 2002]).

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.
#### Aames Funding Corporation, Respondent, v Leonard W. Houston, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Submitted May 18, 2009;

decided June 25, 2009

Motion 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.
[EMC Logo]**ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION I, Mark T. Novachek and Michelle Viner as Officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as Master Servicer pursuant to the Prime Mortgage Trust 2007-1 (the "Agreement") hereby certify that: 1.A review of EMC Master Servicing activities during the period from and including March 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and EMC's Master Servicing performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC Master Servicing has fulfilled all of its obligation under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period in all material respects. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th day of March 2008. /s/ Mark T. Novachek Mark T. Novachek  Senior Vice President /s/ Michelle Viner Michelle Viner  Manager-Vice President
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.E.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: November 16, 2009 |                               |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                         |                               |
| Signature:                   | /s/  Calvin A. Wallen, III    |   |
|                         | Calvin A. Wallen, III, C.E.O. |   |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50178

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-332-2

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Michael Flores has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Flores

has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 12-50178 Document: 00512118068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2013
No. 12-50178

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-50178 Document: 00512118068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2013
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4092 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4092

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
       To clarify certain land use in Jefferson County, Colorado.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND USE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, 
              COLORADO.

    Notwithstanding any applicable State or local land use or 
condemnation laws or regulations, and subject to all applicable Federal 
laws and regulations, any person that holds an approved Federal 
Communications Commission permit to construct or install either a 
digital television broadcast station antenna or tower, or both, located 
on Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County in the State of Colorado, may, 
at such location, construct, install, use, modify, replace, repair, or 
consolidate such antenna or tower, or both, and all accompanying 
facilities and services associated with such digital television 
broadcasts, if such antenna or tower is of the same height or lower 
than the tallest existing analog broadcast antenna or tower at such 
location.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```