alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carol K. Nelson, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cascade Financial
Corporation;

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 annual
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 annual 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 we have:

    a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

    c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

    a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and

    b) 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 12, 2004                           /s/ Carol K. Nelson
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Carol K. Nelson, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer
The Honorable Beverly R. Stites, United States Magistrate

1

Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was

referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

___________

No. 95-3316

___________

Terry Peasha, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * Western District of Arkansas.

of Social Security *

Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: May 24, 1996

 Filed: June 6, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Terry Peasha appeals from the final order entered in the District

Court affirming the decision to deny her application for supplemental

1

security income (SSI). We affirm.

Peasha was born in 1954, and worked as a hair bow assembler and a

newspaper inserter, among other things. In May 1991 and again in July

1992, Peasha applied for SSI benefits alleging disability due to acute

bronchial asthma, emphysema, migraine headaches, vomiting, and severe

swelling. Peasha's applications were denied initially and on

reconsideration. At a June 1993
-2-

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on the 1992 application,

Peasha, her husband, and a vocational expert testified.

The ALJ found Peasha was not disabled. The ALJ discounted Peasha's

subjective complaints to the extent that she alleged total disability,

noting her complaints were not supported by the objective medical evidence

and were inconsistent with her daily activities, her refusal to quit

smoking, and her continued part-time work. The ALJ concluded that, while

Peasha was unable to perform her past relevant work, she had the residual

functional capacity to perform sedentary work subject to a protected

environment free of respiratory irritants. The Appeals Council denied

review. The District Court affirmed the denial of SSI benefits. Peasha

appeals.

Having reviewed the record, which, contrary to Peasha's argument, was

fully and fairly developed, we conclude that substantial evidence on the

record as a whole supports the ALJ's decision to deny Peasha benefits. See

Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the

judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             818                  38,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  18,833
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,504                  29,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,016                  85,146
<PP&E>                                         287,789                 203,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                  98,927                  58,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 218,965                 268,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,981                   9,582
<BONDS>                                         61,323                 153,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   218,965                 268,055
<SALES>                                        119,564                  86,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,363                  88,343
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,120                  29,837
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,122                  10,594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                   2,147
<CHANGES>                                        1,664                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    70,457                  45,765
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
EX-35 (b)
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

DBALT 2006-AR1


I, Michael De Francesco, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

1.   A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
     January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable
     portion thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable
     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 applicable servicing agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.


Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Agreement.

Date: February 28, 2007


/s/ Michael De Francesco
Michael De Francesco
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




Pursuant
      to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned hereby certifies
      that (i) the Annual Report of KH Funding Company on Form 10-KSB for the year
      ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial
      condition and results of operations of KH Funding Company.





Dated:
                April 14, 2008
            
            
            /s/
                Robert L. HarrisRobert
                L. HarrisPresident,
                CEO and CFO
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





I, Pete R. Pizarro, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of eLandia International Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of eLandia International Inc.




Date: April 29, 2011

By:
/s/ Pete R. PizarroPete R. PizarroChief Executive Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3333 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the reduction in 

the deductible portion of expenses for business meals and entertainment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2009 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself, Mr. FARR, Mr. PUTNAM, and Ms. BERKLEY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for 

business meals and entertainment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS 

4 AND ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal 

7 and entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘the ap9 plicable percentage’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3333 IH

1 (b) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—Section 274(n) of 

2 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

3 paragraph (3) and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes 

5 of paragraph (1), the term ‘applicable percentage’ 

6 means the percentage determined under the fol7 lowing table: 

‘‘For taxable years beginning in The applicable 

calendar year— percentage is— 

2009 ................................................................................................... 75

2010 or thereafter .............................................................................. 80.’’. 

8 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading for 

9 section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘ONLY 50 PERCENT’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘PORTION’’. 

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

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luis Manuel BARRAGAN-CAMARENA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-50329.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*226Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Jaime D. Parks, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alysia Desiree Franklin, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Manuel Barragan-Camarena appeals from his 10-month sentenced imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Barragan-Camarena contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, failing adequately to explain the sentence, incorrectly adopting certain Sentencing Guidelines departures, and relying on erroneous factual findings. These contentions are belied by the record. The district court did not procedurally err. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Barragan-Camarena also contends that the district court abused its discretion when it increased his sentence based on conduct related to a dismissed charge. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it relied on Barragan-Camare-na’s fraudulent use of an entry document to increase his sentence. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (instructing courts to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant); *United States v. Barra-gan-Espinoza,*350 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that *United States v. Lawton,*193 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.1999) has been superceded, and holding that sentencing courts may consider aggravating conduct that is dismissed).

Finally, Barragan-Camarena contends that the ten-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was higher than necessary in light of the circumstances, including his allegedly minimal criminal history and the need for deterrence and protection of the public. Given the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 41, 56-58, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Krapf Business Systems, Inc., Doing Business as Magnatag Products, Appellant, v Data Control, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[610 NYS2d 919]

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the cross motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint alleging that the individual defendants, former employees of plaintiff, violated their contractual and common-law duty not to use for their own gain confidential information imparted to them during their course of employment with plaintiff. Defendants submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff’s allegations were lacking in merit and plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise an issue of fact or to provide a valid excuse for its failure to do so *(see, Arc-Corn Fabrics v Robinson,*149 AD2d 311, 312). We find no abuse of *1021discretion in Supreme Court’s discovery order *(see, Blumenthal v Tops Friendly Mkts.,*182 AD2d 1105, 1106). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 325 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. GRIJALVA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Avra/Black Wash Rec5 lamation and Riparian Restoration Project’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

8 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 325 IH

1 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

2 adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. AVRA/BLACK WASH RECLAMATION AND RI4 PARIAN RESTORATION PROJECT, PIMA 

5 COUNTY, ARIZONA. 

6 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera7 tion with Pima County, Arizona, may participate in the 

8 planning, design, and construction of water recycling fa9 cilities and to enhance and restore riparian habitat in the 

10 Black Wash Sonoran Desert ecosystem in Avra Valley 

11 west of the metropolitan Pima County area. 

12 ‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the cost 

13 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

14 25 percent of the cost of the project. 

15 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Federal funds provided under 

16 this section shall not be used for operation or maintenance 

17 of the project described in subsection (a). 

18 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

19 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

20 $14,000,000. 

21 ‘‘(e) USE OF FUNDS.—Federal funds provided under 

22 this section shall only be used for the design, planning 

23 and construction of water-related infrastructure.’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 325 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 for Public Law 102–575 is amended by inserting after the 

3 last item relating to title XVI the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project, 

Pima County, Arizona.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                      11,370
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 23,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,431
<PP&E>                                      31,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             188,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       37,706
<BONDS>                                     99,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               188,910
<SALES>                                    227,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           227,322
<CGS>                                      146,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,908)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (840)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (450)
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,518)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0



</TABLE>
NOTE                 Exhibit 10.22

$16,500                                                    Date: July 31, 2000


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   Archer  Systems  Limited,   Inc.,  the  undersigned
("Payor"),  hereby  promises  to pay to the  order of  Zamora  Funding,  Inc.  a
Delaware corporation,  ("Holder"),  the principal amount of $16,500.00,  payable
twenty  four (24) months  after the date first set forth  above.  The  principal
amount hereof from time to time  outstanding  shall bear interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum,  payable on the date set forth  above.  All payments
hereunder  shall be in  lawful  money of the  United  States of  America  at the
address of the Holder  hereof or at such  address as shall be  specified  by the
Holder to Archer Systems Limited, Inc.

     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.



                                                 Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                                 BY:/s/Richard Margulies
                                                 -----------------------
                                                       Richard Margulies
                                                       President

                                        9