alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13


                  SCHEDULE OF SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL DOCUMENTS


         The following fifteen persons have entered into agreements with the
Company that are substantially identical to the Indemnification Agreement
included as Exhibit 10.12 and that differ only in the name of the person and
the date of the agreement.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                         Name                      Date of Agreement
                         ----                      -----------------
<S>                                                <C>
                  Raymond E. Cartledge               May 22, 1995
                  Charles E. Corpening               May 22, 1995
                  Daniel Goehler                     February 3, 1997
                  Parry D. Katsafanas                October 28, 1996
                  John R. Kennedy                    November 10, 1994
                  Robert D. Kennedy                  February 9, 2000
                  David J. Klima                     October 28, 1996
                  Thomas F. McWilliams               November 10, 1994
                  Robert J. Moore                    December 8, 1997
                  James K. Palmour                   January 20, 1997
                  Peter H. Santoro                   February 10, 1998
                  Michael T. Segraves                October 28, 1996
                  William A. Spanos                  October 28, 1996
                  John H. Steadman                   October 12, 1999
                  William R. Toller                  October 29, 1996
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          57,228                  65,312
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,838                   5,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                       449                     100
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,903                  71,189
<PP&E>                                           9,933                   3,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,028                     683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,576                  74,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,259                   7,519
<BONDS>                                            108                     263
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           216                     189
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,993                  66,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,576                  74,894
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,807                  13,838
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,822                   7,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,158                   9,357
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,040)                   (187)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,174)                 (3,118)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,134)                 (2,931)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,134)                 (2,931)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)                  (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)                  (0.27)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of
2002

(18 U.S.C. § 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Basin Water, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Michael M. Stark, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:



| | 1) | to my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 17, 2008 |  | BY: |  | /s/    MICHAEL M.
STARK
|                     |  |     |  | Michael M. Stark       
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18.U.S.C.1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            659 - INDX 2006-AR2



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, David C. Nolan, is the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Rome Bancorp, Inc. (the Company). This statement is being furnished in connection with the
filing by the Company of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and                                                             
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request



|Date: | August 6, 2007 |  | /s/ David C. Nolan                
|----- | -------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|      |                |  | David C. Nolan                    
|      |                |  | Executive Vice President and Chief
|      |                |  | Financial Officer                 

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE OZUNA ALEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73185

Agency No. A088

- 712

- 470

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022 * *

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Ozuna Aleman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigra tion Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 73185

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th

Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Ozuna Aleman does not raise, and therefore waives,

any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application

was time

- barred and that no exception to the time limitation applied, and the

dispositive determination that he failed to establish nexus to a protected ground in

o rder to establish eligibility for withholding of removal

. See Lopez

- Vasquez v.

Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and

argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). To the extent Ozuna Aleman raises

a political opinion claim and a particular social group claim for the first time in his

opening brief

, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions because he did not

raise them to the agency

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir.

2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review issues or claims not presented below).

Thus, Ozuna Aleman ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail

.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Ozuna Aleman failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

PETITION F OR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
#### Kakha KAKHETELIDZE, a/k/a Kakha Kakhelidze, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1697.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 29, 2011.

Decided: April 13, 2011.

Alexander J. Segal, Grinberg & Segal, P.L.L.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lisa Morinelli, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kakha Kakhetelidze, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for adjustment of status. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and affirm the denial of relief for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re: Kakhe-telidze*(B.I.A. June 4, 2010); *see*8 U.S.C.A. § 1183a(f)(5)(B)(i) (West Supp. 2010). 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 Michael Ocasio, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 267]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 29, 1995 *{People v Ocasio,*222 AD2d 706), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 14, 1994.

*310Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Bracken, J. P;, Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
#### MAURICE BLACKWELL *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 32643)

Gruendel, Robinson and Borden, Js.

Argued January 11

officially released January 31, 2012

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3542 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3542

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 19, 2010

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over 
  the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State's 
                        admission to the Union.

    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 ``State Admission Day Recognition Act 
of 2010''.

SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVERSARY OF STATE'S 
              ADMISSION TO UNION.

    (a) In General.--To honor the anniversary of each State's admission 
to the Union, the Architect of the Capitol shall fly the flag of the 
State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the 
State's admission to the Union.
    (b) Effective Date.--The Architect of the Capitol shall fly the 
first flag of a State over the Capitol under this section on the first 
December 7 which occurs after the date of the enactment of this Act, in 
honor of the anniversary of the admission of Delaware, the first State 
admitted to the Union.

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

    The Committee on House Administration of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may promulgate jointly such regulations as may be appropriate to 
carry out this Act, including regulations permitting the Architect of 
the Capitol to honor the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, 
and the Northern Mariana Islands by flying the flag of each such 
jurisdiction over the Capitol each year on an appropriate date for that 
jurisdiction.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In re Marlow Howard HOOPER, dba Alta Loma Financial and Monique Lori Hooper, Debtors, Marlow Howard Hooper and Monique Lori Hooper, Appellants, v. Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee; et al., Appellees.

No. 12-60013.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 2014.*

Filed Jan. 13, 2014.

W. Derek May, Esquire, Stephen R. Wade, Law Offices of Stephen R. Wade, Upland, CA, for Appellants.

Thomas J. Polis, Esquire, Polis & Associates, APLC, Yaron Shaham, Esquire, Severson & Werson, Irvine, CA, Kevin P. Garland, Greenberg & Traurig LLP, Adam Starr, Santa Monica, CA, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Severson *&*Werson, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees.

*669Before: W. FLETCHER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants Marlow and Monique Hooper appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders (1) overruling their objection to Appellee GMAC Mortgage, LLC’s (GMAC) proof of claim; and (2) granting the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion for an order authorizing the global compromise of the adversary proceeding between, inter alia, the Trustee and GMAC. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We affirm.

First, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the Hoo-pers’ objection and allowing GMAC’s proof of claim. The bankruptcy court properly allowed the claim based upon GMAC’s status as holder of the promissory note, which made the purportedly fraudulently altered deed of trust irrelevant. *See Global W. Dev. Corp. v. N. Orange Cnty. Credit Serv., Inc. (In re Global W. Dev. Corp.),*759 F.2d 724, 727 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). The Hoopers did not produce evidence sufficient to defeat GMAC’s proof of claim. *See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc. (In re Lundell),*228 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.2000).

Second, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the compromise. The bankruptcy court did not err in its assessment of the four factors from *Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Properties ),*784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23123]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 26, 2017.

PLACE: Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit 
consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Chairman Clayton, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; 
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at 
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: October 19, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23123 Filed 10-20-17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 112,037

In the Matter of ERIC MICHAEL GAMBLE,

Petitioner.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On December 5, 2014, this court suspended the petitioner, Eric Michael

Gamble, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 6 months. See In re

Gamble, 301 Kan. 13, 338 P.3d 576 (2014). The court further ordered that the 

petitioner undergo a hearing, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (2015 Kan. Ct. 

R. Annot. 403), prior to consideration of a petition for reinstatement.

On November 24, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for reinstatement. On 

December 7, 2015, the court referred the petition to the Disciplinary Administrator 

for investigation and hearing. On June 9, 2016, a hearing panel of the Kansas 

Board for Discipline of Attorneys conducted a hearing to consider the petitioner's 

petition for reinstatement. 

On August 9, 2016, the hearing panel filed its report setting out the 

circumstances leading to the petitioner's suspension, a summary of the evidence 

presented, and its findings and recommendations. The panel unanimously 

recommended that the petitioner's petition for reinstatement of his license to 

practice law in Kansas be granted.

The court, after carefully considering the record, accepts the findings and 

recommendations of the hearing panel and grants the petitioner's petition for 

reinstatement of his license to practice law in Kansas. 
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petitioner be reinstated to the practice 

of law in Kansas conditioned upon his compliance with the annual continuing 

legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the 

Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education 

Commission. Upon proof provided to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts that the 

petitioner has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements 

and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas 

Continuing Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter the 

petitioner's name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in 

Kansas. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published in the official Kansas 

Reports and that the costs herein be assessed to the petitioner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Effective this 21st day of October, 2016.