alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11


                                     RELEASE
                                     -------

         Except for the Existing Lender's Title Representation (as defined in
the Assignment) and its obligations under the fifth paragraph of the Assignment
to execute and/or deliver certain documents and instruments and to take other
action in connection with the Assignment, the undersigned acknowledges and
agrees that the Existing Lender shall have no further liability or obligation to
the Buyer under, or in connection with, the Loan Documents, and Buyer hereby
releases and forever discharges the Existing Lender, and the Existing Lender's
successors, assigns, agents, shareholders, directors, officers, employees,
agents, attorneys, parent corporations, subsidiary corporations, affiliated
corporations, affiliates, participants and each of them, from any and all
claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, costs, expenses, actions and
causes of action, of every nature and description, known and unknown, which
Buyer now has or at any time may hold, by reason of any matter, cause or thing
occurred, done, omitted or suffered to be done prior to the date of this
Agreement relating in any manner to the Loan Document Obligations (including,
without limitation, the Loans), the Assigned Rights, the Loan Documents or
Borrowers. Buyer waives the benefits of California Civil Code Section 1542 which
provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does
not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release,
which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the
debtor."

                                     Buyer:

                                     Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe VII, L.P.


                                     By:  WCAS  VII Partners, L.P.,
                                              its General Partner


                                     By   /s/ Russell L. Carson
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Title     General Partner
                                             ---------------------------

                                       5
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11395]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8593-4]


Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information, (202) 564-7167 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed 05/04/2009 
through 05/08/2009 pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
EIS No. 20090150, Revised Draft EIS, FHW, IN, I-69 Evansville to 
Indianapolis, Indiana Project, Section 2, Revised to Update the Stream 
Impacts, Oakland City to Washington, (IN-64 to US 50), Gibson, Pike and 
Daviess Counties, IN, Comment Period Ends: 06/29/2009, Contact: Janice 
Osadczuk, 317-226-7486.
EIS No. 20090151, Draft EIS, NPS, CA, Prisoners Harbor Coastal Wetland 
Restoration Project, Proposes to Restore a Functional, Self-Sustaining 
Ecosystem at a Coastal Wetland Site, Channel Islands National Park, 
Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 07/
13/2009, Contact: Paula Power, 805-658-5784.
EIS No. 20090152, Draft EIS, BLM, UT, Mona to Oquirrh Transmission 
Corridor Project and Draft Pong Express Resource Management Plan 
Amendment, Construction, Operation, Maintenance and Decommissioning a 
Double-Circuit 500/345 Kilovolt (Kv) Transmission Line, Right-of-Way 
Grant, Rocky Mountain Power, Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele and Utah Counties, 
UT, Comment Period Ends: 08/03/2009, Contact: Mike Nelson, 801-977-
4300.

    Dated: May 12, 2009.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9-11395 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3784 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3784

 To provide wage parity for certain prevailing rate employees in Rhode 
                                Island.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2006

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide wage parity for certain prevailing rate employees in Rhode 
                                Island.

    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 ``Rhode Island Federal Worker Fairness 
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. WAGE PARITY FOR CERTAIN PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES IN RHODE 
              ISLAND.

    The wage schedules and rates applicable to prevailing rate 
employees (as defined in section 5342 of title 5, United States Code) 
in the Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, wage area shall be the same as 
the wage schedules and rates applicable to prevailing rate employees in 
the Boston, Massachusetts, wage area.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 2 shall take effect beginning with the first pay period 
beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Michael H. Neuman, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 813]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 2012, as resettled by a decision filed September 12, 2012, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he refused a suitable offer of employment without good cause.

Claimant worked for, among others, various temporary placement agencies and, after he was no longer needed for a job close to his home, he applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits. Shortly after filing his claim, one of the temporary placement agencies offered him a position for which he had *1217some previous experience at an hourly wage that was less than his previous employment. The job was located approximately 20 miles from claimant’s home. Claimant refused the job offer, indicating that the salary was too low for him to drive that far. Following various proceedings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the basis that he refused a suitable offer of employment without good cause, charged him with a recoverable overpayment and reduced his right to receive future benefits. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. “A claimant who refuses to accept a job for which he or she is reasonably suited by training and experience will be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” *(Matter of Schirra [Commissioner of Labor],*45 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *see Matter of Southern-Penn [Commissioner of Labor],*83 AD3d 1318, 1319 [2011]). Here, the record confirms that claimant was qualified for the job offered to him and the position paid the prevailing wage *(see Matter of Schirra [Commissioner of Labor],*45 AD3d at 1068). As for claimant’s rejection of the job offer due to its location, “dissatisfaction with the length of one’s commute does not constitute good cause for rejecting an otherwise suitable offer of employment” *(Matter of Pelle [Commissioner of Labor],*12 AD3d 750, 751 [2004]; *see Matter of Cunningham [Commissioner of Labor],*19 AD3d 980, 980 [2005]). Notably, claimant admitted receiving the unemployment insurance handbook explaining his obligations regarding reasonable commuting distances under these circumstances.

Finally, inasmuch as there is substantial evidence in the record that claimant failed to properly report that he refused the offer of employment, we find no basis to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant made a willful false statement in order to obtain benefits *(see Matter of Niedert [Commissioner of Labor],*98 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2012]).

Peters, PJ., Rose, Spain and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,938
<PP&E>                                         314,428
<DEPRECIATION>                               (202,943)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,681
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,985
<SALES>                                         12,727
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,231
<CGS>                                           10,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,829
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,284)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,284)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,284)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
EX-31 Sarbanes-Oxley Certification.


  I, Diane Courtney, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed the 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 Merrill Lynch Alternative Note Asset Trust, Series
    2007-OAR2 (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.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing 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 ABS 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:
    Central Mortgage Company as Servicer, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
    LP as Servicer and IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 26, 2008


    /s/ Diane Courtney
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 612 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 612

To require the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical Badge 
    or another combat badge for Army helicopter medical evacuation 
                 ambulance (Medevac) pilots and crews.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2005

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical Badge 
    or another combat badge for Army helicopter medical evacuation 
                 ambulance (Medevac) pilots and crews.

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

SECTION 1. AWARD OF COMBAT MEDICAL BADGE (CMB) OR OTHER COMBAT BADGE 
              FOR ARMY HELICOPTER MEDICAL EVACUATION AMBULANCE 
              (MEDEVAC) PILOTS AND CREWS.

    (a) Requirement to Elect and Award Combat Badge.--The Secretary of 
the Army shall, at the election of the Secretary--
            (1) award the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) to each member of 
        a helicopter medical evacuation ambulance crew; or
            (2)(A) establish a badge of appropriate design, to be known 
        as the Combat Medevac Badge; and
            (B) award that badge to each member of a helicopter medical 
        evacuation ambulance crew who meets such requirements for 
        eligibility for the award of that badge as the Secretary shall 
        prescribe.
    (b) Award for Service Before Date of Enactment.--In the case of 
persons who qualified for treatment as a member of a helicopter medical 
evacuation ambulance crew by reason of service during the period 
beginning on June 25, 1950, and ending on the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall award a badge under subsection (a) to 
each such person with respect to whom an application for the award of 
such badge is made to the Secretary after such date in such manner as 
the Secretary may require.
    (c) Member of Helicopter Medical Evacuation Ambulance Crew 
Defined.--In this section, the term ``member of a helicopter medical 
evacuation ambulance crew'' means any person who while a member of the 
Army served in combat on or after June 25, 1950, as a pilot or crew 
member of a helicopter medical evacuation ambulance.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 88 (Friday, May 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21729-21730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10933]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Wade Cook Financial Corp., Warning Management 
Services, Inc., Weldotron Corp., Western Microwave, Inc., Wickes, Inc., 
Worldwide Technologies, Inc., and Worldwide Xceed Group, Inc. (n/k/a 
Liquidating WXG, Inc.); Order of Suspension of Trading

May 6, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Wade Cook Financial Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Warning Management Services, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended December 31, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Weldotron Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
February 28, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Western Microwave, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended March 31, 1997.

[[Page 21730]]

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Wickes, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended June 28, 2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Worldwide Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended June 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Worldwide Xceed Group, Inc. (n/k/a Liquidating WXG, Inc.) because it 
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended February 28, 
2001.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 
on May 6, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 19, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10933 Filed 5-6-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
AURORA
LOAN SERVICES
 A
Lehman Brothers Company
 Depositor:
                Structured
      Asset Securities Corporation745
      Seventh Avenue 8th FloorNew
      York, NY10019Trustee:
                LaSalle
      Bank National Association135
      S. LaSalle Street Suite 1625Chicago,
      IL 60603Attention:
      Global Securities and Trust
Services
 
 Securities
Administrator:
 Subject:
                Annual Officer's
      CertificationFiscal
      Year:
                2007Securitization:
                LXS
  2007-3
 I, E.
Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan
Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar
Year 2007:
 1.       A
review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period beginning on
the cut-off date and
ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting period") and of its performance
under the
Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision.
 2.        To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects throughout such
reporting period.
 Certified
by:   AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC
  /s/ E. Todd Whittemore
 Name:  E.
Todd Whittemore
 Title:    Executive
Vice President
#### State v. Campbell

Case below: 151 N.C. App. 749

No. 300P07

Def s Motion for “Petition for Plain Error Review Pursuant to N.C. 7A-28” (COA01-1301) ■*

Dismissed 10/11/07
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MICHAEL DANIEL HAMMONDS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 0:02

- cr - 00535

- CMC

- 1 )

Submitted : March 2 9 , 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022

Before HARRIS , QUATTLEBAUM , and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael Daniel Hammonds, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Daniel Hammonds appeals the distr ict court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. deni ed , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the
record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing am ount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### The Mayor and Council of Americus *v.*Chapman *et al.*

The evidence' warranted the jury in finding for the plaintiffs; the damages awarded them were not excessive; and there being no complaint that any error of law was committed by the trial court, the judgment is *Affirmed.*

August 14, 1894.

Action for damages. Before Judge Fish. Sumter superior court. May term, 1893.

Chapman and Lowe brought separate suits against the city for personal injuries received while driving together in a buggy along a public street at night, by reason of the horse falling in a ditch which the city had •dug across the street for sewerage purposes; of which they were not aware, and which the city had left open without any railing or other protection around it, and with no light or other signal or warning of the danger of the ditch. Chapman alleged that his knee was badly bruised and sprained, and he was bruised on his back and stomach, causing him much pain and suffering; that said injury totally disabled him for fourteen days, and he was still unable to attend to his every day business on account of the injuries; that he was a dentist, and prior to the injury earned about twenty dollars a day in the practice of his profession; and that his physician’s bill on account of the injuries was about $100. Lowe claimed that his knee and foot were seriously in*712jured, causing him .great pain and entirely disabling-him from work for fourteen days; that he was also injured internally by the accident, from which he still suffered; that he was disabled from* his work as a drummer, and that his physician’s bill was about $100. By consent the two cases were consolidated and tried together, the jury to render separate verdicts. They found in favor of Chapman $565, and in favor of Lowe $390. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.

E. A. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error. Hudson & Blalock, Clarke & Hooper and J. A. Ansley, *contra.*