alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-33 (i)
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

SERVICER'S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE


Washington Mutual Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing
compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") of the Platform Transactions
(as defined below) with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
Regulation AB (12 CFR part 229.1122), except the following criteria 1(iii) and
3(i)(C) and (D), which we have concluded are either (i) not applicable to the
servicing of the mortgage loans included in the Platform Transactions (each, a
"Mortgage Loan"), or (ii) performed by other parties with respect to the
Mortgage Loans (such criteria, after giving effect to the foregoing exceptions,
the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this
Servicer's Assessment are those securitizations of pools of mortgage loans that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and prior to January 1, 2007 for
which the Asserting Party performed servicing functions set forth in Item
1122(d), that included one or more classes of publicly offered securities
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933, and for which the Asserting Party has an obligation to
deliver an Assessment of Compliance pursuant to Item 1122 (the "Platform
Transactions").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period, using the Applicable Servicing
Criterion, and has concluded that it has complied in all material respects with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Mortgage Loans.

Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report on the Asserting Party's assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

Dated: March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK


By:    /s/ H. John Berens
Name:  H. John Berens
Title: Senior Vice President
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 on Form 10-Q of Susquehanna Media
Co. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter
P. Brubaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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. /s/ Peter P. Brubaker
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonzia Marques CONTRELL PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-15492

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 14, 2011.

Vincent Chiu, Peggy Morris Ronca, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Of*896fice, Orlando, FL, Robert E. O’Neill, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephen J. Langs, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Alonzia Marques Contrell Phillips, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen J. Langs, appointed counsel for Alonzia Contrell Phillips in this appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Phillips’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### Leroy DEBOSE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Pamela WILLIAMS, Director, State Classification and Records; John B. Wyeth, Former Administrative Assistant, State Classification and Records; Charley Valdez, Former Administrative Assistant, State Classification and Records; B. Murra, Former Administrative Assistant, State Classification and Records; Board of Pardons and Parole, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-50884

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 28, 2011.

Leroy DeBose, Huntsville, TX, pro se.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant DeBose, Texas prisoner # 251249, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he alleged, inter alia, that the defendants’ implementation of parole laws have violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed De-Bose’s claims that challenge laws and policies up to and including 2002 as barred by res judicata or for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The district court dismissed DeBose’s claims that challenge changes in policies and laws between 2005 and 2009 for want of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e). To the extent that DeBose’s claims could be construed as habeas claims, the district court dismissed them without prejudice to filing an application for habeas relief in a court with proper venue after he has exhausted his state court remedies.

DeBose’s brief contains conclusional phrases and legal boilerplate, which indicates an intent to challenge the district court’s determinations that particular claims were barred by res judicata, that his Due Process Clause claims lacked merit, and that he failed to establish an Ex Post Facto Clause violation. DeBose fails to provide any coherent argument, however, that adequately addresses the district court’s analysis regarding these issues or other issues that were addressed by that court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9); *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). As DeBose has failed adequately to brief a challenge to the district court’s decision, his appeal is without arguable merit and therefore is dismissed as frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Our dismissal of DeBose’s appeal as frivolous counts as a strike. *See*§ 1915(g); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1996). We therefore warn De-Bose that if he accumulates three strikes he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*473APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-51152

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:98-CR-93

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Keith Russell Judd, federal prisoner # 11593-051, was convicted of two 

counts of mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. 

In 1999, he was sentenced to 210 months in prison on each count, with the 

terms to be served concurrently. He was also sentenced to concurrent threeyear terms of supervised release. Judd began his supervised release on June 

24, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the Probation Office sought a warrant for Judd 

* 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

November 4, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-51152 Document: 00512825107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
No. 13-51152

because he violated the terms of his supervision. The district court

subsequently revoked Judd’s supervision finding that he had violated the 

terms of his release, notably, contacting the victim of his underlying threats

convictions. The district court imposed a sentence of 12 months in prison to be 

followed by 24 months of supervised release.

On appeal, Judd makes no direct challenge to the district court’s 

revocation of his supervised release or the sentence imposed on revocation. He 

argues that the district court was without jurisdiction to conduct the 

proceedings because the district court was without jurisdiction to convict him. 

We will not consider this argument because a defendant may not challenge the 

validity of his underlying sentence of supervised release on appeal from the 

revocation of supervised release. United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 

(5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 2005).

Judd also argues that he was denied his right to represent himself in the 

revocation proceedings. This argument is mistaken because the record shows 

that Judd assented, in open court, to proceeding with representation by 

counsel. The issue is without merit, therefore, because it lacks basis in fact. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Judd has shown no reversible error in the district court’s revocation of 

his supervised release or the sentence imposed on revocation. The judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED. His outstanding motions, including his 

amended motion for release pending appeal, are DENIED.

2

 Case: 13-51152 Document: 00512825107 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
**Exhibit 23.2**

**DEGOLYERAND MACNAUGHTON**

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD

SUITE 800 EAST

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

**March 31, 2011**

Geomet Inc. 

909 Fannin Street

Suite 1850 

Houston, Texas 77010

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We hereby consent to the reference to DeGolyer and MacNaughton, to the incorporation of information contained in our “Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2010 on Certain Properties Owned byGeoMet, Inc. Proved Reserves”, “Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2009 on Certain Properties Owned by GeoMet, Inc. Proved Reserves,” “Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2008 on Certain Properties Owned by GeoMet,Inc. Proved and Probable Reserves,” “Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2007 on Certain Properties Owned by GeoMet, Inc. Proved Reserves,” and “Appraisal Report on Proved Reserves as of December 31, 2006 on CertainProperties Owned by GeoMet, Inc.,” (our Reports), and to references to our Reports in “Part I, Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties,” “Part II, Item 6. Selected Financial Data,” “Part II, Item 7.Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and “Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Geomet, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2010 (the 10-K). We also consent to the inclusion of our letter report dated February 15, 2011 in “Part IV, Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules” as “Exhibit 99.1” in the 10-K.
#### Francisca Brito, Respondent, v Stratford Five Realty, LLC, Respondent, and Triumph Construction Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[987 NYS2d 380]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered December 27, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Triumph Construction Corp. (Triumph) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured in March 2009 when she allegedly fell on uneven, broken sidewalk. It is undisputed that defendant Triumph had performed work at the subject intersection starting in September 2008. Contrary to Triumph’s contention that it had not performed any work on the sidewalk at the northwest corner where plaintiff fell, its daily work report for September 4, 2008 includes a sketch suggesting the northwest sidewalk as an area of work. Furthermore, beginning in January 2009, Triumph excavated an area adjacent to where plaintiff fell using a backhoe, van, compressor, and 10-wheel dump truck. Although Triumph argues that this work did not encroach on the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, the work area was in sufficient proximity to *473the fall as to create a triable issue of fact as to whether such work created the sidewalk condition on which plaintiff fell *(see McNeill v LaSalle Partners,*52 AD3d 407, 411 [1st Dept 2008]).

Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Julian, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 72]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law *1065§ 145.05) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]). The conviction arises from, a break-in at a seafood store in the Town of Murray and the theft of a quantity of food items therefrom. At trial, codefendant and a woman who drove with defendant and codefendant to the store testified for the People. County Court charged the jury that codefendant and the woman were accomplices as a matter of law. An independent witness who observed the break-in testified and gave a description of a truck that was parked in the store lot. A deputy sheriff testified that, shortly after the break-in, he observed defendant and the accomplices standing next to a pickup truck matching the description given by the witness; food items were in plain view in the back of the truck. That evidence sufficiently connected defendant with the crimes to satisfy the corroboration requirement of CPL 60.22 (1) (see, *People v Cousins,*221 AD2d 923, 925, *lv denied*87 NY2d 1018, 88 NY2d 965).

There is no merit to the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). “ ‘[A] simple disagreement with strategies, tactics or the scope of possible cross-examination, weighed long after the trial, does not suffice’ to satisfy defendant’s burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel” *(People v Brandon,*237 AD2d 980, quoting *People v Flores,*84 NY2d 184, 187). (Appeal from Judgment of Orleans County Court, Punch, J.—Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ranado Bent, Appellant.

[609 NYS2d 855]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered October 5, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION
OF
 CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In
connection with this Quarterly Report of River
Hawk Aviation, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert J.
Scott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of
his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008008, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of River Hawk Aviation, Inc.
  Date: August
14, 2008
 By: /s/
      Robert J. ScottRobert
      J. ScottChief
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Financial Officer,
Director
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATIONS








I, Debra G. Morehead, certify that:





1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Zenex International, Inc.;2.
Based on my knowledge, this annual 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.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;5.
The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.


****Date: March 31, 2005
By:
/s/ Debra G. MoreheadDebra G. MoreheadChief Financial Officer
[No. 67503-6-I.

Division One.

October 15, 2012.]

#### David Monk et al., *Appellants,*v. Kristina A. Driessen et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 11-2-08964-9, J. Wesley Saint Clair, J., entered July 12, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Leach, C.J.,

concurred in by Becker and Spearman, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40755 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RODRIGO DE JESUS ZAPATA-URIBE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-416

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rodrigo de Jesus Zapata-Uribe, federal prisoner # 46120-079, has applied for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Zapata-Uribe argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the denial of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and for failing to object to the increase for his leadership role in the offense.Because Zapata-Uribe filed his § 2255 motion in 1994, prior

to the April 24, 1996, effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, he is not required to obtain a COA to proceed with his appeal. Lindh v. Murphy , 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2067-68 (1997); United States v. Carter , 117 F.3d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1997). No further briefing is necessary to decide the appeal. Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Essentially for reasons adopted by the district court, we hold that Zapata-Uribe has failed to present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. United States v. Zapata-Uribe , No. H-98-CV-416 (S.D. May 15, 1998). Because Zapata-Uribe’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Second Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger



 Exhibit 10.3 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER 
 This Second Amendment to Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the “Amendment”) dated as of April 3, 2007, is entered into by and among American Access Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (“AAT”), AAT Merger Sub, Inc., a Florida corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
AAT (“Merger Sub”) and M & I Electric Industries, Inc., a Texas corporation (“M & I”). 
 WHEREAS, AAT, Merger Sub and M & I have previously entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of December 1, 2006 as amended by agreement dated March 13, 2007 providing for the merger of
M & I with Merger Sub in accordance with the terms and provisions more specifically set forth therein (the “Merger Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, AAT, Merger Sub and M & I desire to amend the Merger Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Amendment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and in the Merger Agreement and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Capitalized terms used
herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Merger Agreement. 
 2. The undersigned parties hereby expressly amend
the Merger Agreement as follows: 
 Section 9.1(a)(vi) is amended to change the date set forth therein from April 30, 2007 to
May 18, 2007. 
 3. Except as herein provided, the terms of the Merger Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 4. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, and all such counterparts, when so executed and delivered, shall constitute but one and the
same agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

							
	 AMERICAN ACCESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 	M & I ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
				
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Timothy C. Adams
	 	By:	 	 /s/ Arthur G. Dauber

	 Title:
	 	President	 	Title:	 	President

  

			
	 AAT MERGER SUB, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Timothy C. Adams

	Title:	 	President