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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)*





In connection with the Annual Report of Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, James C. Dyer, IV, Chief Executive Officer of Blueknight Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C., and Alex G. Stallings, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Blueknight Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C., certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:





(1) the 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.








/s/ James C. Dyer, IV


James C. Dyer, IV


Chief Executive Officer of


Blueknight Energy Partners G.P., LLC,


general partner of Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P.





March 16, 2011








/s/ Alex G. Stallings


Alex G. Stallings


Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of


Blueknight Energy Partners G.P., LLC,


general partner of Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P.





March 16, 2011

















*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report.
[ S u n t r u s t   L o g o ]  ******MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION ON COMPLIANCE****WITH SEC REGULATION AB CRITERIA**February 25, 2008 SunTrust Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "CFR") for all loans serviced by SunTrust Bank's Commercial Mortgage Finance Group, which consist primarily of non-recourse, fixed rate, long term commercial mortgage loans (the "Platform"), except for the criteria set forth in Sections 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(4)(ii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Asserting Party has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). Although the Asserting Party is responsible for assessing compliance with Sections 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(vi), and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of Regulation AB, there were no servicing activities performed during the year ended December 31, 2007 that required these servicing criteria to be complied with. Management's assertion identifies all loans constituting the Platform serviced by the Asserting Party as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. The Asserting Party used the applicable criteria in paragraph (d) of Title 17, Section 229.1122 of the CFR to assess compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. The Asserting Party has concluded that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period"). Ernst & Young, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion. SUNTRUST BANK By: /s/ Dorris R. Folsom  Name:  Dorris R. Folsom Title:  Director By:  /s/ Candy Harwell Name: Candy Harwell Title:  Vice President
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-0146

_____________________________

RUSSELL NAKIA MASON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

June 21, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Russell Nakia Mason, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### State of New York ex rel. Barbara D., Appellant, v Francis D., Respondent. Francis D., Respondent, v Barbara D., Appellant.

Submitted July 13, 2009;

decided September 8, 2009

Reported below, 58 AD3d 436.

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 9, 2009 dismissal order denied *[see 12*NY3d 872 (2009)].
#### Savannah, Thunderbolt & Isle of Hope Ry. *v.*Bryan.

There being evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the defendant’s motorman, after seeing that there might be a collision with the wagon in which the plaintiff and his driver were riding, negligently approached the crossing without having his car under complete control; and also in finding that there was some negligence on the part of the plaintiff or his driver in going upon the crossing, but that after getting upon the same they could not then, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence; and the recovery being manifestly for a less amount than that to which the plaintiff would have been entitled had there been no fault with which he was chargeable, the verdict, after its approval by the trial judge, will not be disturbed. *Judgment affirmed.*

July 16, 1894.

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

Bryan sued the railroad company for killing his horse and destroying his wagon and harness by the running of its electric car, and obtained a verdict for $100. The company moved on the general grounds for a new trial, and the motion was overruled. The nature of the evidence is similar to that in the *Beasley*case, *ante,*148; *633and it need not be set forth further than as indicated in the head-note.

Saussy & Saussy, for plaintiff in error.

McAlpin & LaRoche, *contra.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1711

NARCISSE DJOMASI, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-196-028) Submitted: January 10, 2007 Decided: February 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sopo Ngwa, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Melvin Lublinski, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Djomasi does not challenge the denial of withholding under the CAT. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Narcisse Djomasi, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Djomasi claims the evidence supports his appl ication for asylum and the immigration judge imposed upon him a higher burdenof proof. * We deny the petition for review. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). The INA defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). An applicant can establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2006). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).- 3 - An applicant has the burden of demonstrating hiseligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); GandziamiMickhou v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). This court will reverse the Board “only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We find the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding to be supported by the record. Therefore, the evidence does not compel a different result. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. PETITION DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance Daniels, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 351]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered May 26, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the subject crimes is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not move for a trial order of dismissal *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484 [2008]; *People v Sandoval,*58 AD3d 760 [2009]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an *848independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo, 2*NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P, Skelos, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 593 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 593

   To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the 
provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy 
                               countries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2005

    Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Burr, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
Schumer, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
 Graham, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
  Baucus, and Mr. Lott) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the 
provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy 
                               countries.

    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 ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO NONMARKET ECONOMY 
              COUNTRIES.

    Section 701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) 
is amended by inserting ``(including a nonmarket economy country)'' 
after ``country'' each place it appears.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 apply to petitions filed under 
section 702 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Merit Systems Protection Board

# AGENCY:

Merit Systems Protection Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance Review Board.

# Dates:

May 15, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marion Hines, Human Resources Director, Office of Financial and Administrative Management, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Merit Systems Protection Board is publishing the names of the new and current members of the Performance Review Board (PRB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). An-Ming “Tommy” Hwang, formerly a member of the PRB, will serve as Chair of the PRB. William L. Boulden and William D. Spencer will serve as new members. Gail T. Lovelace, formerly a member of the PRB, will serve as an advisory member.

Dated: May 11, 2009.

William D. Spencer,

Clerk of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-11323 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7400-01-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 530 

To amend section 691 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

end strengths of the Army and the Marine Corps for fiscal years after 

fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 4, 2005 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BIDEN, 

Ms. LANDRIEU, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. NELSON of Florida) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 691 of title 10, United States Code, to 

increase the end strengths of the Army and the Marine 

Corps for fiscal years after fiscal year 2005, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN END STRENGTHS OF THE ARMY 

4 AND THE MARINE CORPS FOR FISCAL YEARS 

5 AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2005. 

6 (a) INCREASE IN END STRENGTH OF ARMY.—Para7 graph (1) of section 691(b) of title 10, United States Code 
2 

•S 530 IS

1 is amended by striking ‘‘502,400’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘532,400’’. 

3 (b) INCREASE IN END STRENGTH OF MARINE

4 CORPS.—Paragraph (3) of such section is amended by 

5 striking ‘‘178,000’’ and inserting ‘‘183,000’’. 

6 (c) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED ADDITIONAL AUTHOR7 ITY FOR INCREASE IN END STRENGTHS.—Section 403 of 

8 the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 

9 Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375; 118 Stat. 

10 1863; 10 U.S.C. 115 note) is repealed. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall take effect on October 1, 2005. 

Æ
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAVINDER SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74075

Agency No. A070-551-134

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Ravinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion

FILED

FEB 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JT/Research 2 07-74075

the denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.

2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing Singh’s third motion to

reopen as seeking reopening of its January 26, 2005, order, and denying the motion

as untimely filed and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). 

Singh’s remaining contentions are unavailing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

I, N. Joshua Adler, 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 Alternative Loan Trust Resecuritization
          2007-HY5R (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 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 parties: The
     Bank of New York, as Trustee.

     Date: March 27, 2008


     /s/ N. Joshua Adler
     ----------------------------------
     N. Joshua Adler
     President and Chief Executive Officer
     (Senior officer in charge of securitization of
     CWALT, Inc.)
|   | 1. | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2009,      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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for      the period ending June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      China Advanced Construction Materials Group,  Inc. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      September 28, 2009                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |
| /s/Chin Hsiao                                                 |
| Chin      HsiaoPrincipal      Financial and AccountingOfficer |

----
#### Williams *v.*Johnston, executrix.

js apparent that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to approve the brief of evidence, but on the contrary as his memory, by reason of the lapse of time since the trial, had failed in respect to what the evidence really was, he was well justified in his refusal. And there being no brief of evidence, the motion for a new trial was properly dismissed on motion based upon that defect in the proceedings. *Judgment affirmed.*

April 23, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Motion for a new trial. Before Judge Eish. Sumter superior court. May term, 1893.

*723Hudson & Blalock, for plaintiff in error.

Guerry & Son and J. N. Scarborough, *contra.*

The ease was tried and verdict rendered on May 28, 1892. The motion for a new trial was filed on June 18. On July 30 the motion was called for hearing, and movant presented what he claimed to he a correct brief of the evidence. Respondent claimed that it was incorrect in many particulars, and produced what he claimed was a correct brief. Upon examination, the court saw that movant’s brief was incorrect as to several matters; but as to others, about which the two briefs sharply conflicted, the judge was wholly unable to say which was correct, being unable to remember what the witnesses testified, on account of the lapse of time since the trial and the great amount of business transacted in the meantime. The evidence had not been steno-graphically reported. Both briefs were left with the judge for him to reconcile the conflicts or decide which was correct, if possible; and the hearing was continued to September 2, with a provision that movant have until then to perfect the motion and file a brief of evidence. On that day the judge announced that he was unable to reconcile the two briefs or to remember what the testimony was on the disputed points; and expressed a hope that counsel might agree on a brief. They could not agree, however, a'nd no brief of evidence Avas ever approved or filed. The motion was continued several times; and finally, in July, 1893, it was dismissed on motion, for want of a brief of evidence.