alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Kristen Ann Cronin, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
     2006-SL2 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
     servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
     conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
     their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects;
     and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
     criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
     reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
     accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
     13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
     except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
     of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer.

     Dated: May 28, 2008


     /s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)
STRATS Trust For Goldman Sachs Group Securities, Series 2006-2 - 10-K

Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Barbara Garafalo, certify that:



1.          I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
on Form 10-K of STRATS Trust For Goldman Sachs Group Securities, Series 2006-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2.          Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;



4.          Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
respects; and



5.          All of
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports
on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
this report on Form 10-K.



In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied
on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.





|Dated: March 31, 2017 | By: | /s/ Barbara Garafalo                                     
|--------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     | Barbara Garafalo                                         
|                      |     | Vice President                                           
|                      |     | (senior officer of depositor in charge of securitization)
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3023 

To amend the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 

with respect to budgetary treatment of certain amounts of financial 

assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2021 

Mr. COSTA (for himself and Mr. CURTIS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and 

in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act of 2014 with respect to budgetary treatment of certain amounts of financial assistance, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Restoring WIFIA Eli5 gibility Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3023 IH

1 SEC. 2. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS 

2 OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. 

3 Subtitle C of title V of the Water Infrastructure Fi4 nance and Innovation Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3901 et 

5 seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 5036. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN 

7 AMOUNTS OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. 

8 ‘‘If the recipient of financial assistance for a project 

9 under this subtitle is an eligible entity other than a Fed10 eral entity, agency, or instrumentality, and the dedicated 

11 sources of repayment of that financial assistance are non12 Federal revenue sources, such financial assistance shall, 

13 for purposes of budgetary treatment under the Federal 

14 Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)— 

15 ‘‘(1) be deemed to be non-Federal; and 

16 ‘‘(2) be treated as a direct loan or loan guar17 antee (as such terms are defined, respectively, in 

18 such Act).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 3.1

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                            THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                             FOUNDRY NETWORKS, INC.


     The undersigned, Bobby R. Johnson, Jr. and Joshua L. Green, hereby certify
that:

     1.  They are the duly elected and acting Chief Executive Officer and
Secretary, respectively, of said corporation, which was incorporated on May 22,
1996, under the name Perennium Networks, Inc., and changed its name to StarRidge
Networks, Inc., on June 5, 1996, and to Foundry Networks, Inc., on January 22,
1997.

     2.  The Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation was originally
filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on May 22, 1996.

     3.  Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, this Certificate of Amendment of the Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation amends Article IV(A) of this corporation's Certificate of
Incorporation to read in its entirety as follows:


          "(A)  Classes of Stock.  The Corporation is authorized to issue two
                ----------------
     classes of stock to be designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and
                                                       ------------
     "Preferred Stock."  The total number of shares which the Corporation is
     ----------------
     authorized to issue is Three Hundred Five Million (305,000,000) shares,
     each with a par value of $0.0001 per share.  Three Hundred Million
     (300,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock and Five Million (5,000,000)
     shares shall be Preferred Stock."

     4.  The foregoing Certificate of Amendment has been duly adopted by this
corporation's Board of Directors in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     Executed at San Jose, California, on June 21, 2000.


                                      /s/ Bobby R. Johnson, Jr.
                                      -------------------------
                                      Bobby R. Johnson, Jr., Chief Executive
                                      Officer


                                      /s/ Joshua L. Green
                                      -------------------
                                      Joshua L. Green, Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael S. Fields, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.



|                    |  |  |  |                                          
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Dated: May 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ MICHAEL S. FIELDS                    
|                    |  |  |  | Michael S. Fields Chief Executive
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### QIANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74300.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Barbara-Ann Williams, Esquire, Law Offices of Barbara-Ann Williams, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

*243Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Paul Fiorino, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *243*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Qiang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Wang’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s December 1, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Wang failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897.

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Wang’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Erin Wirth Designated Commission\u2019s Chief Administrative Law Judge","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5IIFOmtoQD\"><a href=\"\/erin-wirth-designated-commissions-chief-administrative-law-judge\/\">Erin Wirth Designated Commission\u2019s Chief Administrative Law Judge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/erin-wirth-designated-commissions-chief-administrative-law-judge\/embed\/#?secret=5IIFOmtoQD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Erin Wirth Designated Commission\u2019s Chief Administrative Law Judge” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"5IIFOmtoQD\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, J. Kimo Esplin,certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Huntsman Corporationand Huntsman International LLC;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.             The registrants’ other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants, including their consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrants’ disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrants’ internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrants’ other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrants’ auditors and the auditcommittee of registrants’ board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrants’ ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’ internal control over financialreporting.

Date: February 21,2007
|        |     | /s/ J. KIMO ESPLIN        |   |
|--------|----------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |     | J. Kimo Esplin            |
|   | * * | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### ANDROME LEATHER CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GLOVERSVILLE, Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Gloversville, D. Robert Robbins Jr., Thomas Renda, Frances Mosconni, *664Margaret Ralbovsky, Garrison Seelow, Deborah Ashe, Kelly Octigan, Karen Smith a/k/a Kat, Michael Capparello, Abraham Seroussi, Common Council of the City of Gloversville, Anthony J. Caruso, Marie A. Schutz, Frank A. Clemente, Anthony P. Christiano, Paul E. Reid, Marylouise R. Mele, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-515-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2010.

Lewis B. Oliver, Jr., Esq., Oliver Law Office, Albany, NY, for Appellant.

Peter G. Barber, Esq., Murphy, Burns, Barber & Murphy, LLP, Albany, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, B.D. PARKER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, *J.),*which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

A “class of one” equal protection claim requires the claimant to demonstrate that they share an “extremely high degree of similarity” with the “person[] to whom they compare themselves.” *Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin,*468 F.3d 144, 159 (2d Cir.2006) (citations omitted). Further, the claimant must show that:

> (i) no rational person could regard the circumstances of the plaintiff to differ from those of a comparator to a degree that would justify the differential treatment on the basis of a legitimate government policy; and (ii) the similarity in circumstances and difference in treatment are sufficient to exclude the possibility that the defendant acted on the basis of a mistake.

*Neilson v. D’Angelis,*409 F.3d 100,105 (2d Cir.2005) (citations omitted) (partially abrogated on other grounds by *Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric.,*553 U.S. 591, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008)).

Here, Appellant differed from its proffered comparator, JBF, in at least one important respect. JBF had at one point enjoyed a “grandfathered” right to engage in the process of “beaming,” whereas Appellant had never enjoyed such a right and applied to obtain a use variance from the zoning ordinance in question. By itself, this difference raises “the possibility that the defendant acted on the basis of a mistake,” negating an essential element of the “class of one” claim and rendering appropriate an award of summary judgment for the defendants.

We have considered Appellant’s remaining contentions, and find them without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Charles GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4045.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 5, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 10, 2010.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

*759Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Charles Green appeals the sixty-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of fifty grams or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). On appeal, Green contends that the district court procedurally erred in sentencing him by failing to recognize its authority to reject the craek-to-powdercocaine sentencing disparity. The Government concurs. After carefully reviewing the record, we agree that the court procedurally erred, vacate Green’s sentence, and remand for further proceedings in light of *Spears v. United States,*555 U.S. 261, 129 S.Ct. 840, 843-44, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009) (“[District courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines.”). We dispense with oral argument because the issues are adequately presented before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*