alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35.4
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE


Re: The Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2007 (as amended,
the "Agreement"), between Washington Mutual Bank Mortgage Securities Corp. as
Servicer and DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., as Seller with respect to CSMC
Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3 ("CSMC 2007-3") (the
"Securitization").


I, H. John Berens, a Senior Vice President of Washington Mutual Bank (the
"Servicer"), certify to the Owner, the Depositor and the Master Servicer under
the Securitization, the following for the 2007 fiscal year (the "Relevant
Year"):


1. A review of the activities of the Servicer 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 Servicer 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/ H. John Berens
Name: H. John Berens
Title: Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

WHEREAS, ABITIBIBOWATER INC., a Delaware corporation (the Company), proposes shortly to file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), the Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Act.

WHEREAS, each of the undersigned is a Director of the Company.

NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Richard Garneau, Jo-Ann Longworth and Jacques P. Vachon and each of them, as true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them with full power to act without the others, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign said Annual Report and any and all amendments thereto, and any and all other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has hereunto set his or her hand this 22nd day of February 2012.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|/s/ Richard B. Evans  |  |  |  | /s/ Richard D. Falconer
|Richard B. Evans      |  |  |  | Richard D. Falconer    
|Chairman of the Board |  |  |  | Director               
|                      |  | 
|/s/ Jeffrey A. Hearn  |  |  |  | /s/ Alain Rheaume      
|Jeffrey A. Hearn      |  |  |  | Alain Rheaume          
|Director              |  |  |  | Director               
|                      |  | 
|/s/ Paul C. Rivett    |  |  |  | /s/ Michael S. Rousseau
|Paul C. Rivett        |  |  |  | Michael S. Rousseau    
|Director              |  |  |  | Director               
|                      |  | 
|/s/ David H. Wilkins  |  |  |  |                        
|David H. Wilkins      |  |  |  |                        
|Director              |  |  |  |
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

I, Leonard Perham, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of MoSys, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2011;

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.                                      [Intentionally omitted]

 

4.                                      [Intentionally omitted]

 

5.                                      [Intentionally omitted]

 

 
| Date:   April 30, 2012             |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   |
| /s/   LEONARD PERHAM                    |   |
| Leonard   Perham                        |   |
| *President and Chief Executive Officer* |   |

 

----
#### In the Matter of James Riches et al., Appellants, v New York City Council et al., Respondents.

Decided June 24, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the two-Justice dissent at the Appellate Division is not on a question of law (CPLR 5601 [a]).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                      20,888,000
<SECURITIES>                                17,973,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,608,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                 22,201,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,324,000
<PP&E>                                     129,924,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              91,710,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             113,807,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,596,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   123,609,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (63,555,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               113,807,000
<SALES>                                     29,513,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,513,000
<CGS>                                       17,718,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,718,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,613,000        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             410,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,116,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   106,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,010,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,010,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Annual Report of Allied Healthcare International
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Timothy M. Aitken, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 results of operations of the
Company as at and for the year ended September 30, 2004.

Date:  December 22, 2004
                                          /s/ Timothy M. Aitken
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Timothy M. Aitken
                                          Chief Executive Officer of the Company
```
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, David E. Pearson, the Chief Financial Officer of Telos Corporation (the
Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, (the Report). The
undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



May 15, 2003



/s/ DAVID E.
PEARSONDavid E. Pearson, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Justin Mitchell, Appellant, v FBM, LLC, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 913]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 22, 2008, which denied, with leave to renew, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action seeking a declaration that defendant is the successor in interest or alter corporate entity to nonparty Fidelity Borrowing, LLC, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly found that plaintiffs motion, brought before discovery had begun, was premature. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 32056(11).]
<PAGE>

                            EXHIBIT 11.1

                     DEGEORGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

          STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


The computation of per share earnings (loss) per share is based on the
weighted average number of shares outstanding during the years earnings
(loss) per share is presented in the registrant's report on Form 10-K.

For purposes of illustration, weighted average shares outstanding are
computed in the following tables:

            INCREASE                        NUMBER      WEIGHTED
           (DECREASE)   OUTSTANDING         OF DAYS     AVERAGE
DATE       IN SHARES      SHARES          OUTSTANDING    SHARES
----       ---------      ------          -----------    ------

1994
01/01/94           -     10,470,193             59      1,692,442
03/01/94      33,333     10,503,526            287      8,258,937
12/12/94    (33,333)     10,470,193             10        286,855
12/23/94     340,000     10,810,193              9       2 66,552
                                               ---     ----------
                                               365     10,504,786
                                                       ----------
                                                       ----------

1995
01/01/95           -     10,810,193            365     10,810,193
                                                       ----------
                                                       ----------

1996
01/01/96           -     10,810,193            365     10,810,193
                                                       ----------
                                                       ----------


                                       75
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

I, Leonard Perham, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of MoSys, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2015;

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.                                      [Intentionally omitted]

 

4.                                      [Intentionally omitted]

 

5.                                      [Intentionally omitted]

 
| Date:   April 29, 2016             |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   |
| /s/   LEONARD PERHAM                    |   |
| Leonard   Perham                        |   |
| *President and Chief Executive Officer* |   |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeuane H. Harvey, Also Known as Jevene Harvey, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 900]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J), rendered July 28, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and reckless endangerment in the second degree (§ 120.20). The People presented evidence at trial that defendant fired a weapon while standing on a sidewalk in the City of Rochester, and that children were playing in the adjacent street and pedestrians were on the sidewalk. Contrary to defendant’s contention, he was not entitled to pretrial notice that the People intended to present a witness who would testify that defendant approached her several months after the shooting and asked her whether she was going to appear in court *(see People v Small,*12 NY3d 732, 733 *1430[2009]). Even assuming, arguendo, that Supreme Court erred in determining that the evidence does not constitute *Molineux*evidence, we conclude that the court properly determined that the evidence was relevant to the issue of identity, and we further conclude that the probative value of the testimony on that issue outweighed any prejudice to defendant *(see People v Igbinosun,*24 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2005]; *see generally People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350, 359-360 [1981]). We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.

Present—Scudder, PJ., Smith, Centra, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 99

            CERTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

                                Explanatory Note
                                ----------------

        This document supersedes the information set forth under the caption
"Dependence on Computer Platform" contained in Exhibit 99 (Additional
Information Regarding Forward Looking Statements) to the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996. In filing this update, the
Company has not (i) undertaken to update any other information contained in its
Form 10-K or Exhibit 99 thereto or (ii) assumed any obligation to provide
further updates in the future on the topics covered hereby.

DEPENDENCE ON COMPUTER PLATFORM

        The Company currently uses the Power Macintosh computer, manufactured
by Apple Computer, as the platform for its PowerGene product line. Apple
Computer has recently announced that it will release its next generation
operating system in 1998. They have also announced their commitment to
releasing newer versions of its current Mac OS operating system and continuing
to support and maintain it. The Company is committed to developing its
PowerGene product line on the Mac OS operating system which, in addition to the
Apple Macintosh, is capable of running on a variety of third party PowerPC
based computer platforms manufactured by companies such as Motorola and Power
Computing. The Company is also evaluating the possibility of offering the
PowerGene product line on other operating system platforms, including Apple
Computer's recently announced next generation operating system. The Company
believes the recently announced support for Apple Computer by Microsoft
Corporation will reduce the transitional risks of offering the product line on
multiple operating system platforms. Nevertheless, there can be no assurance 
that future events will not cause a delay in the development and/or timely 
supply of any new product based on another operating system platform and that 
such a delay could affect sales of the PowerGene product line.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

L.R.P. and I.M.,

Minor Children. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 24

- 00126

- C V

Appeal from the

388th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2021DCM2663 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the trial

court’s order requiring Appellant to pay court costs . We therefore reverse the order of the court

below in accordance with this Court ’ s opinion. We further order the trial court allow Appellant to

proceed without payment of court costs . This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26 TH DAY OF JUNE 20 24

.

JEFF ALLEY

, Chief Justice

Before Alley

, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
#### Alexis Llorente, Plaintiff, and Carmen Lee, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted May 18, 2009;

decided June 25, 2009

*899Motion 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.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-175194) on Form S-8 of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd. of our report dated February 10, 2011, except for Note1, under “Reverse Stock Split and Change in Par Value,” as to which the date is May 25, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K/A ofFreescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd. 

KPMG LLP 

Austin, Texas 

June 28, 2011
[922 NE2d 880, 895 NYS2d 294]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roland Ramos, Appellant.

Decided January 12, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Jonathan Garelick*and *Steven Banks*of counsel), for appellant.

*Richard A. Brown, District Attorney,*Kew Gardens *(Daniel Bresnahan*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered on the charges of scheme to defraud in the first degree and petit larceny, and the present indictment otherwise dismissed without prejudice to an application by the People, if they be so advised, for leave to resubmit the charge of grand larceny in the fourth degree to another grand jury *(see People v Steadman,*82 NY2d 1 [1993]; *People v Mayo,*48 NY2d 245, 253 [1979]).

The trial court erred when it admitted hearsay evidence without a proper foundation (CPLR 4518 [a]). Even assuming some documents may be admitted as business records without *915foundation testimony *(see People v Kennedy,*68 NY2d 569, 577 n 4 [1986]), the record at issue in this case was not such a document. Nothing on its face indicates that it “was made in the regular course of any business and that it was the regular course of such business to make it” (CPLR 4518 [a]). Nor can the error be deemed harmless in the circumstances of this case.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10644

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VINCENT JOHN BAZEMORE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-312-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., federal prisoner # 37160-177, moves for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s 

denial of his motion for specific performance, or alternatively, to withdraw his 

guilty plea. The motion filed in the district court challenged Bazemore’s 2009 

conviction for securities fraud. As in the district court, Bazemore argues on 

appeal that the Government breached the proffer agreement entered into 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 23, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10644 Document: 00512480895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2013
No. 13-10644

during the plea negotiation process. He contends that he is entitled to specific 

performance of the agreement or to withdraw his guilty plea.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Bazemore is challenging 

the district court’s certification that his appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue 

and is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 

1997). Bazemore’s motion for specific enforcement, or alternatively to 

withdraw his guilty plea, was unauthorized because the relief he sought was 

not available under any federal rule or statute providing for postconviction 

relief. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, 

his appeal is “from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” See 

Early, 27 F.3d at 142.

Bazemore’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his request 

for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2

 Case: 13-10644 Document: 00512480895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2013
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00534-CV

Keriston Alais Thomas

v.

Francisco Rodriguez Ortiz

On Appeal from the

267th District Court of Jackson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2104-16400

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 19, 2023