alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2010-1173.

#### State ex rel. Krihwan v. Falkowski.

Lake App. No. 2009-L-093, 2010-Ohio-2286. This cause was filed as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s jurisdictional memorandum, it is determined by the court that this cause originated in the court of appeals and, therefore, should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prae.R. 2.1(A)(1).

It is ordered by the court that the Clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prae.R. 6.2 - 6.7.
Exhibit 10.34
 Letter Agreement  Action Required
 
   
      th




---



##### 



Letter Agreement  Action Required
   
    
    a lump sum severance payment equal to your then current annual rate of base salary;
    
    a lump sum severance payment equal to your then current annual target bonus;
    
    a lump sum severance payment equal to your target bonus for the year in which your
employment terminates, pro-rated based upon the number of days you were employed with the
Company during the year of termination and for which you have not otherwise received or
been eligible for a bonus, and in lieu of any other bonus for the year of termination,
except as set forth in this agreement;
    
    continuation of your health plan coverage through the end of the month in which your
last date of employment occurs. Thereafter, you will be eligible to continue health plan
coverage pursuant to the terms of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(COBRA). If you elect to continue health plan coverage pursuant to COBRA, the Company
will subsidize your COBRA payments for the first twelve (12) months so that you will pay
the same monthly premiums as active employees for the same coverage; provided, however,
that if you are eligible for another group health plan coverage prior to the end of this
period, the Company shall not be responsible for any further payments; provided, further,
however, that the Company may, in its sole discretion, provide you with a lump sum payment
in lieu of providing a COBRA subsidy. Thereafter, you will be responsible for the full
payment of any COBRA premiums through the remainder of your eligibility; and
    
    outplacement benefits pursuant to Company policy.




---



##### 



Letter Agreement  Action Required
     
  /s/ Dean S. Sivley
    
    
    
    8-10-07Dean Sivley
    
    
    
    Date




---



##### 



Letter Agreement  Action Required
 ADDENDUM TO LETTER AGREEMENT:
 Definitions
  Restrictive Covenants
 Non-Competition




---



##### 



Letter Agreement  Action Required




---



##### 



Letter Agreement  Action Required
 Confidentiality
  provided
 provided




---



##### 



Letter Agreement  Action Required
 Intellectual Property




---



##### 



Letter Agreement  Action Required
 Specific Performance
  Cooperation with Litigation
  Survival
  Miscellaneous
 Governing Law
 Amendments
 No Waiver
 Severability
 Assignment ab initio




---



##### 



Letter Agreement  Action Required
  Set Off; No Mitigation
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 Annual Report of MIPSolutions, Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary MacDonald, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





By:       /s/ Gary MacDonald

Chief Executive Officer and Director



April 20, 2011



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ardon P. CATO, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7139.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 31, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2011.

Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ardon P. Cato, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substan-

tial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cato has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We furthermore deny as moot Cato’s motion to hold this case in abeyance pending the district court’s consideration of his motion to amend the district court’s judgment, as the district court has denied that motion. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
[Nos. 24781-3-III; 24782-1-III; 24783-0-III; 24795-3-III; 24796-1-III; 24797-0-III.

Division Three.

August 16, 2007.]

#### *In the Matter of the Interest of*S.H. et al. Terry Joseph Hubbard et al., *Appellants,*v. The Department of Social and Health Services, *Respondent.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Okanogan County, Nos. 05-7-00018-0, 05-7-00019-8, and 05-7--00020-1, Jack Burchard, J., entered November 15, 2005. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sanders, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Stephens, J.
**EXHIBIT 35.2**

 

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “Administrative Agent”), dohereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005 (the“Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer, and theAdministrative Agent the following with respect to WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WAMU Series 2007-HY5 Trust for the 2007 fiscal year  (the “RelevantYear”): 

1.                  A review of the activities of the AdministrativeAgent during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.                  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,the Administrative Agent has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of March 1, 2008.

 

| /s/ Barbara Campbell Name:  Barbara Campbell Title:    First Vice President |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Structured Asset Securities Corporation
745 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019



RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year
2007 or applicable portion thereof (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Master Servicer and/or Securities
Administrator under the servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the
"Servicing Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


February 25, 2008

/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
KRISTEN ANN CRONIN
Vice President


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

1 Trust Agreement for THORNBURG 2006-4, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master
  Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

2 Sale and Servicing Agreement for Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-1
  Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2007-1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master
  Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

3 Sale and Servicing Agreement for Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-2
  Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2007-2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master
  Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable
#### Cherie PHILLIPS and Stoic Church of Philosophy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sanderson BECK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-15961.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 19, 2011.

Cherie Phillips, Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Sanderson Beck, Goleta, CA, pro se.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Cherie Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action claiming that Sanderson Beck infringed on her intellectual property rights in her texts including Wisdom Bible of God, Stoic Encheiridion, and Stoic Doctrine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Filipino Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Asian Journal Publ’ns, Inc.,*198 F.3d 1143, 1146 n. 2 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Phillips’s copyright claims because she did not raise a triable issue as to whether Beck had access to the expanded edition of her Wisdom Bible of God, or as to whether there was a substantial similarity between the Phillips’s and Beck’s other texts. *See Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton,*212 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir.2000) (“Absent direct evidence of copying, proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that the defendant had access to the plaintiffs work and that the two works are substantially similar.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Phillips’s trademark claim because she did not establish a triable issue as to whether her title, Wisdom Bible of God, had secondary meaning. *See Filipino Yellow Pages,*198 F.3d at 1147, 1151.

We decline to consider Phillips’s contentions regarding claims that were not raised below. *See Dodd v. Hood River Cnty.,*59 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir.1995).

We are not persuaded by Phillips’s remaining contentions, including those of judicial bias.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
FDIC Quarterly FOIA Report

2

nd Quarter 2019 (January 1 – March 31, 2019)

1. Number of requests received during quarter: 103

2. Number of requests processed during quarter: 94

3. Number of requests backlogged at end of quarter: 3

4. Status of the FDIC’s ten overall oldest pending FOIA requests from the previous fiscal 

year (i.e., number closed during quarter): All ten (10) requests were closed during the 1st

quarter of FY2019
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

        Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Euramax International, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 27, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, J. David Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of 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 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial position and results ofoperations of the Company.
| /s/  J. DAVID SMITH                                           |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| J. David Smith  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  February 20, 2004 |

 

 

----
Lessor /s/ DK Lessee /s/ GZ9. Existing Terms and Provisions. Except as specifically amended by the terms hereof, all terms andprovisions of the Lease as heretofore amended, shall remain in full force and effect.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed bytheir representatives, thereunto duly authorized, as of the date first above written.**“Lessor”**         Amejak Limited Partnership,    an Oklahoma limited partnership,           By: Kajema Properties, Inc., an    Oklahoma corporation, General Partner         Witness:             /s/Donna Pruitt By: /s/ Dana Kanady       **Dana Kanady**     **Title:****Vice President**   **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed by theirrepresentatives, thereunto duly authorized, as of the date first above written.   **“Lessee”**           First Trinity Financial Corporation           By: /s/ Gregg Zahn            Title: /s/ President  Witness:/s/ W. Sherman Lay
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-55500]



[[Page 9651]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

26 CFR Part 1


Filing of Consolidated Returns

CFR Correction

    In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (Sec. 1.1401 
to End), revised as of April 1, 2000, in Sec. 1.1502-75, paragraph (k) 
is corrected by correctly revising ``See Sec. 1.338(h)(10)-T(d)(7)'' to 
read ``See Sec. 1.338(h)(10)-1T(d)(7)''.

[FR Doc. 01-55500 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John F. Wilkens, as Chief Financial Officer of AESP, Inc. (the Company),
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: (1) The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. Date: November 17, 2004
    /s/ John F. WilkensJohn F. WilkensChief Financial Officer
FDIC 5210/01 (5-21) Page of 

OMB Number: 3064-0122 

Expiration Date: 01/31/2023

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

EXPERT INVOICE FOR FEES & EXPENSES (EIF&E)

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.0 hour per response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden to the Public Reporting Act Clearance Officer, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, 550 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20429, and the Office and Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction 

Project (3064-0122), Washington, D.C. 20503. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

Page down to access form 5210/01
FDIC 5210/01 (5-21) Page of 

OMB Number: 3064-0122 

Expiration Date: 01/31/2023

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

EXPERT INVOICE FOR FEES & EXPENSES (EIF&E)

INSTRUCTIONS: Please provide all requested information.

SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Matter Number 2. Matter Caption

SECTION II - FIRM AND INSTITUTION INFORMATION

3. Financial Institution Name 4. Institution Number

5. Financial Institution Address (City, State, ZIP Code)

6. Expert Firm Name 7. Federal Tax ID Number

8. Expert Firm Address (City, State, ZIP Code)

9. Expert Firm Contact 10. Telephone

11. Expert Firm Accounts Receivable Contact 12. Telephone

13. FDIC Office Location 14. FDIC Attorney 15. Telephone

SECTION III - CURRENT BILLING INFORMATION

16. Invoice Number 17. Billing Period Date

From: Through:

18. Complete the following billing information.

Fees Billed Expenses Billed Total

Grand Total

SECTION IV - CERTIFICATION

I certify that the information contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that all charges for legal 

services and disbursements reflected herein are in accordance with our retention agreement with the FDIC Legal Division.

19. Name of Expert 20. Title of Expert

21. Authorized Signature 22. Date
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                         CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
                           EXECUTIVE RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN


                    The Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation Executive

          Restricted Stock Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended, effective

          as of March 31, 1997, in the following respects:

                    1.   By deleting the phrase "stock of the Corporation"

          where it appears in Section 1 of the Plan and inserting in lieu

          thereof the phrase "Shares, as defined below,".

                    2.   By deleting Section 2(j) of the Plan and inserting

          in lieu thereof the following:

                    "(j) "Shares means (i) prior to March 31, 1997,
               shares of common stock of the Corporation and (ii) on
               and after March 31, 1997, shares of common stock of the
               Company."

                    3.   By adding a new Section 2(l) to the Plan after

          Section 2.1(k) as follows:

                    "(l) "Company" means CTG Resources, Inc. or any

               successor or successors."

                    4.   By deleting the first sentence of Section 10(c) of

          the Plan and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

               "Neither the Corporation nor the Company is required to
               cause Shares issued under the Plan to be registered
               under the Securities Act of 1933 or the securities laws
               of any state."

                    5.   By deleting the first sentence of Section 10(d) of

          the Plan and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

               "Any obligation to issue Shares pursuant to any Award
               shall be conditioned on the Company's ability at
               nominal expense to issue such Shares in compliance with
               all applicable statutes, rules or regulations of any
               governmental authority."







                    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation

          has caused this instrument to be executed in its name and by its

          authorized officers as of the 17th day of May, 1999.

                                        CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION


                                        By: S/ Jean S. McCarthy
                                            ------------------------------
          (Corporate Seal)

          ATTEST:

          S/ R.L. Babcock
          -------------------------
               Secretary




































                                                                       2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Alton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

d1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141716 & (18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141716 COA: 298130 Oakland CC: 2008-222486-FH GACOLBY TARSHAR MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the July 13, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for the appointment of substitute appe llate counsel, in light of Halbert v Michigan , 545 US 605; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 55 2 (2005). Based on our review of the record, the Oakland Circuit Court erred in failing to timely appoint appellate counsel. This delay, in turn, led the defendant to seek appellate relief in the Court of Appeals beyond the 12-month deadline in MCR 7.205(F)(3). We further not e that on July 14, 2 010, the circuit court entered an order granting appointed counsel’ s motion to withdraw and also granting the appointment of substitute counsel, but there is no indication that substitute counsel was in fact appointed. Once appointed, substitute co unsel may file an application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal s, and/or any appropriate postconviction motions in the trial court, within six months of the date of th e circuit court’s order appointing counsel. Counsel may include among the i ssues raised, but is not requ ired to include, the issue raised by the defendant in his application for le ave to appeal in this Court. In all other respects, the application fo r leave to appeal and the motion to remand are DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the questions pres ented should now be reviewed by

this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.