alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1


                              INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.

          INDYMAC HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED TRUST, SERIES
                                     2007-H1


      The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
("IndyMac Bank"), pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March
14, 2007 (the "Agreement"), among IndyMac ABS, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as
depositor, IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series 2007-H1
(the "Trust"), IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., a federally chartered bank, as seller and
servicer (in such capacity, the "Seller" and "Servicer"), and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company, a national banking association, as Indenture Trustee on
behalf of the Noteholders (in such capacity, the "Identure Trustee"),
does hereby certify that:

      IndyMac Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.
Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings as set
forth in the Agreement.

      1.    The undersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly authorized
            pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to
            the Indenture Trustee.

      2.    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from
            the Closing Date to December 31, 2007, and of its performance under
            the Agreement, was conducted under my supervision.

      3.    Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
            fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the
            Agreement throughout the period from the Closing Date to December
            31, 2007, and no default in the performance of such obligations has
            occurred or is continuing.


                                        1

<PAGE>


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 25th
day of February 2008.

                                           INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.
                                           as Servicer,


                                           By: /s/ Gary D. Clark
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Name:  Gary D. Clark
                                               Title: Executive Vice President


                                        2
#### Iqbal Singh, Appellant, v City of New York Division of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided October 22, 2009

Reported below, 2009 NY Slip Op 7673501).

Motion for leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Car Seats and Booster Seats
              
							
								How to Install a Backless Booster Seat


Language:
English
        Español
      Share:
  Facebook
  Twitter
  LinkedIn
  Mail




		How to Install a Backless Booster Seat
  
       
  

      How to Install a Backless Booster Seat
          
              
          Watch the video
    

 
  Booster seats are not tightly installed in the vehicle the way car seats are. Booster seats are held in place by the child’s weight and the vehicle’s lap-and-shoulder belts. These seats boost children up to ensure a correct seat belt fit.
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  McGladrey & Pullen, LLP The Board of Directors
Uroplasty, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements (Nos. 333-107110 and
333-30372) on Form S-8 of Uroplasty, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated June 22, 2005, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Uroplasty, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders equity and comprehensive
loss and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the March 31, 2005,
annual report on Form 10-KSB of Uroplasty, Inc. /s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 29, 2005
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Telos Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Date:   August 14, 2012/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)





Date:   August 14, 2012/s/ Michele NakazawaMichele NakazawaChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                      TRANSACTION BONUS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

                               Amendment Number 1

This Amendment Number 1 to the Transaction Bonus Agreement dated May 14, 2001
between Hanover Direct, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Thomas
C. Shull ("Shull"), which evidenced the grant to Shull by the Company of a
transaction bonus upon the occurrence of a Change in Control (the "Termination
Bonus Agreement"), shall be effective as of September 1, 2002.

                              W I T N E S S E T H :

         WHEREAS, the Company and Shull entered into the Transaction Bonus
Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and Shull now desire to amend the Transaction
Bonus Agreement in certain respects.

         NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto to the
following amendments to the Transaction Bonus Agreement:

         1. The number at the end of the third sentence of the first paragraph
of the Transaction Bonus Agreement is hereby changed from "$600,000" to
"$900,000."


         2. All references in the Transaction Bonus Agreement and in this
Amendment Number 1 to the "Services Agreement" shall refer to the Employment
Agreement between the Company and Shull, entered into as of September 1, 2002.
<PAGE>
         3. Except as hereunder provided, the Transaction Bonus Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect without further modification. IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company and Shull have executed this Amendment Number 1 as of
September 1, 2002.

                                    HANOVER DIRECT, INC.

                                    By:     /s/ Michael D. Contino
                                            --------------------------
                                            Name:  Michael D. Contino
                                            Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Operating Officer

                                    /s/ Thomas C. Shull
                                    --------------------------
                                    Thomas C. Shull
#### Nickolas P. Cimino et al., Appellants, v County of Nassau, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[963 NYS2d 698]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered March 28, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant County of Nassau which was for summary *884judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Nickolas E Cimino allegedly was injured when his motorcycle struck a defective condition on Merrick Road in Nassau County. The plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the County failed to properly maintain Merrick Road, and that the County created the defective condition. The County moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained street or sidewalk unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies *(see Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471 [1999]; *Braver v Village of Cedarhurst,*94 AD3d 933, 934 [2012]; *Pennamen v Town of Babylon,*86 AD3d 599 [2011]). “Exceptions to the prior written notice requirement have been recognized where the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a special benefit upon it” *(Braver v Village of Cedarhurst,*94 AD3d at 934; *see Yarborough v City of New York,*10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; *Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d at 474).

Here, the County established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition as required by the Administrative Code of the County of Nassau § 12-4.0 (e) *(see Forbes v City of New York,*85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; *Spanos v Town of Clarkstown,*81 AD3d 711 [2011]), and that it did not make the repairs to Merrick Road which allegedly constituted the defective condition *(cf Braver v Village of Cedarhurst,*94 AD3d at 934). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the County’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### McElveen Commission Co. *v.*Jackson & Brother.

1. The court may refuse to grant a continuance applied for on the • ground of the providential absence of the party, when the truth of the ground is unsupported by any evidence except a telegram from the party to his counsel.

2. A new trial may be denied, the ground of the application being that the movant was absent from the court because of the sickness of his wife, where the only evidence of her sickness is his own affidavit, if the affidavits of other witnesses to whom the court gives credit contradict this affidavit as to a material matter, and if, according to the party’s own showing, the wife’s sickness was not sudden but had existed for some days, so as to afford time to furnish the court with proper evidence of its existence before the trial began.

3. It was not error to refuse to postpone the hearing and decision of the motion for a new trial to enable the movant to obtain other affidavits, which he said he could procure, to support his own as to the sickness of his wife, he not naming any person or persons who could or would make such affidavit or who had knowledge of the alleged sickness.

4. It is not cause for a new trial that the court refused to dismiss the action on motion of defendant, the ground of the motion being that the suit was against a partnership composed of two persons, only one of whom had been served, and there was no return of service or of *non eat inventus*as to the other. This is true whether the cases of *Printup Bros. & Co.*v. *Turner,*65 *Get.*71, and *Bits*v. *Bone,*71 *Get.*466, were correctly ruled or not.

June 11, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Complaint. Before Judge Sweat. Glynn superior court. May term, 1893.

Frank H. Harris and John L. Harris, for plaintiff in error. Owens Johnson, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"National Intelligence Press","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tpRkcaKSfE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/ni-press\/\">National Intelligence Press<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/ni-press\/embed\/#?secret=tpRkcaKSfE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“National Intelligence Press” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"tpRkcaKSfE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Henry R. Mandell certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 26, 2007     /s/ Henry R. Mandell  Henry R. Mandell  Chairman of the Board and Secretary
50
#### State v. Dockery

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 652

No. 561P06

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1471)

Denied 01/25/07
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 657 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make a technical correction 

in the definition of outpatient speech-language pathology services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make 

a technical correction in the definition of outpatient 

speech-language pathology services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION IN THE DEFINITION 

4 OF OUTPATIENT SPEECH-LANGUAGE PA5 THOLOGY SERVICES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(ll) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ll)) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as 

9 paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and 
2 

•S 657 IS

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol2 lowing new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(2) The term ‘outpatient speech-language pa4 thology services’ has the meaning given the term 

5 ‘outpatient physical therapy services’ in subsection 

6 (p), except that in applying such subsection— 

7 ‘‘(A) ‘speech-language pathology’ shall be 

8 substituted for ‘physical therapy’ each place it 

9 appears; and 

10 ‘‘(B) ‘speech-language pathologist’ shall be 

11 substituted for ‘physical therapist’ each place it 

12 appears.’’. 

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 

14 1861(p) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(p)) 

15 is amended by striking the fourth sentence. 

16 (2) Section 1833(a)(8)(A) of the Social Security Act 

17 (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(8)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘out18 patient physical therapy services (which includes out19 patient speech-language pathology services) and out20 patient occupational therapy services’’ and inserting ‘‘out21 patient physical therapy services, outpatient speech-lan22 guage pathology services, and outpatient occupational 

23 therapy services’’. 

24 (3) Section 1833(a)(8)(B) of the Social Security Act 

25 (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(8)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘out-
3 

•S 657 IS

1 patient physical therapy services (which includes out2 patient speech-language pathology services) and out3 patient occupational therapy services’’ and inserting ‘‘out4 patient physical therapy services, outpatient speech-lan5 guage pathology services, and outpatient occupational 

6 therapy services’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to services provided on or after 

9 the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of 

10 this Act. 

Æ
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# QCourt of**§ppeaI~** 

# for tbe jf 

# eberaI QCircuit
AFTG-TG, LLC AND 

### PHILLIP M. ADAMS & 

### ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

### v. NUVOTON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND 

### NUVOTON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AMERICA, Defendants, AND 

### PEGATRON CORPORATION, PEGATRON TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, INC., AND 

### UNIHAN, Defendants-Appellees.
2011-1306 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofWyoming in case no. 10-CV-0227, Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal. 

### ONMOTION ORDERAFTG-TG v. NlNOTON TECH 2 Upon consideration of Nuvoton Technology Corporation and Nuvoton Technology Corporation America's unopposed motion to reform the caption, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. The official revised caption is reflected above. 

## JUL 192011 Date

cc: Ezekiel R. Dumke, IV, Esq.


### s21 E. Robert Yoches, Esq. Ronald S. Lemieux, Esq. FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### FILED 

### •.s. COURTOFAPPEALSFOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT


# . JUL 1 92011

JANHORBALY CLERK