alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, 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 CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-5
            (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
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
            in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
            disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
            fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) 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 parties: The Bank
      of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 25, 2008

      /s/ Steve Bailey
      ---------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
      (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
      Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      613
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,708
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,173
<PP&E>                                           1,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,454
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,215
<OTHER-SE>                                        (253)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,416
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,575
<CGS>                                           16,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (402)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (28)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (226)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (226)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
Sample AHP Income Limits 

A-1
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2798 

To require a proposal for a pay table for commissioned officers of the 

Armed Forces using steps in grade based on time in grade rather 

than time in service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2018 

Mr. ROUNDS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a proposal for a pay table for commissioned 

officers of the Armed Forces using steps in grade based 

on time in grade rather than time in service. 

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 ‘‘Defense Officer Per5 sonnel Pay Reform Act of 2018’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2798 IS

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROPOSAL FOR PAY 

2 TABLE FOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF 

3 THE ARMED FORCES USING STEPS IN GRADE 

4 BASED ON TIME IN GRADE RATHER THAN 

5 TIME IN SERVICE. 

6 (a) PROPOSAL REQUIRED.—Not later than 90 days 

7 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

8 of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense com9 mittees a report setting forth a proposal for a pay table 

10 for commissioned officers of the Armed Forces that uses 

11 steps in grade for each pay grade based on time of service 

12 within such pay grade rather than on time of service in 

13 the Armed Forces as a whole. 

14 (b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT.—Not 

15 later than March 1, 2019, the Comptroller General of the 

16 United States shall submit to the congressional defense 

17 committees a report setting forth an assessment by the 

18 Comptroller General of the proposed pay table required 

19 pursuant to subsection (a), including an assessment of the 

20 effects of using the proposed pay table, rather than the 

21 current pay table for commissioned officers of the Armed 

22 Forces, on recruitment and retention of commissioned of23 ficers of the Armed Forces as a whole and on recruitment 

24 and retention of commissioned officers of the Armed 

25 Forces with particular sets of skills (including cyber and 

26 other technical skills). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2798 IS

1 (c) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DE2 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘congressional defense 

3 committees’’ has the meaning given that term in section 

4 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Paul SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Warden BRCI, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-6837.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 20, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 11, 2011.

*729Paul Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13367-13368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5128]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34008]


Dickinson Osceola Railroad Association--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Dickinson Osceola Railroad Association (DORA), a non-profit entity, 
newly created to become a Class III railroad, has filed a notice of 
exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire (by purchase) and operate 
approximately 37.21 miles of rail line currently owned by Union Pacific 
Railroad Company (UP). The line to be acquired and operated, UP's 
Estherville Branch, extends between approximately milepost 79.34, at a 
point west of Superior, IA, and the end of the line at approximately 
milepost 116.55, a point west of Allendorf, IA, in Dickinson and 
Osceola Counties, IA. DORA certifies that its projected revenues will 
not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and 
its revenues are not projected to exceed $5 million.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DORA states that it will interchange traffic with UP. DORA 
further states that it will provide common carrier rail freight 
service over the line for its own account or through a contract 
operator, which will obtain its own operating authority from the 
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after 
February 16, 2001.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34008, must be filed with

[[Page 13368]]

the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control 
Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on John D. Heffner, Esq., REA, 
CROSS & AUCHINCLOSS, Suite 570, 1707 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036 [Attorney for DORA], and Mac Shumate, Esq., Law Department, Union 
Pacific Railroad Company, 101 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1920, Chicago, IL 
60606 [Attorney for UP].
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: February 23, 2001.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5128 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-11-00696-CV

Jaime P. MARTINEZ and Hector Carrillo,

Appellants

v.

Margaret MORAN, Purported National President of 

the League of United Latin American Citizens aka (LULAC), et al.,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-19501

Honorable David A. Berchelmann, Jr., Judge Presiding1

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the orders of the trial court are 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees recover their costs of this appeal from appellants.

SIGNED May 22, 2013.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

 1 Appellants appeal two separate orders granting pleas to the jurisdiction. The Honorable Peter Sakai signed the 

order granting the first plea to the jurisdiction, and the Honorable David A. Berchelmann, Jr. signed the order 

granting the second plea to the jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF METRO INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. AS PRESENTED IN THE
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS' LEGEND.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          20,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                       148
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,854
<PP&E>                                          10,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,273
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           148
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,477
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,110
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,831
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,899
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
| 1. | AESEBA S.A. |
|----|-------------|

| 2. | Empresa de Sistemas Eléctricos Dispersos |
|----|-----------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Empresa Distribuidora de Energía Norte S.A. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad de La Rioja S.A. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad de Salta S.A. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------|

| 6. | Empresa Distribuidora de San Luis S.A. |
|----|----------------------------------------|

| 7. | Empresa Distribuidora Eléctrica Regional S.A. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------|

| 8. | Emdersa Generación Salta S.A. |
|----|------------------------------------|

| 9. | Sociedad Anónima Centro de Movimiento de Energía |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Exhibit 10.21.3

 

CERTAIN IDENTIFIED INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH NOT MATERIAL AND WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE REGISTRANT IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. [***] INDICATES THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN REDACTED.

 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT

 

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT, dated as of April 24, 2015 (this “Amendment”), is by and between QUICKEN LOANS INC. (the “Borrower”) and FIFTH THIRD BANK (the “Lender”).

 

RECITALS

 

A.            The Borrower and the Lender are parties to a Credit Agreement dated as of December 30, 2013, as amended by the First Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of April 21, 2014, and as amended by the Second Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of December 29, 2014 (as amended and as may be further amended or restated from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”).

 

B.            The parties now desire to amend certain terms of the Credit Agreement as set forth herein.

 

TERMS

 

In consideration of the premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties agree as follows:

 

ARTICLE I AMENDMENTS. Subject to Article III hereof, the Credit Agreement is amended as follows:

 

1.1          The following definition is added to Section 1.01 of the Credit Agreement in the appropriate alphabetical location:

 

“Bond Financing’’’ means an offering of up to [***] Senior Unsecured Notes substantially on the terms and conditions described on Exhibit A to the Third Amendment to Credit Agreement.

 

1.2          The definition of “Permitted Financing” in Section 1.01 of the Credit Agreement is amended to read:

 

“Permitted Financing” means: (a) Warehousing Indebtedness, Securitization Indebtedness, MSR Indebtedness and similar arrangements whereby Borrower finances, sells or transfers Mortgage Assets, in each case, in the ordinary course of business and consistent with past practices; (b) obligations incurred in respect of Early Purchase Programs; (c) financing the carrying of REO Assets, and (d) the Bond Financing.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered as of the date first written above.

 

	
 
    	
QUICKEN LOANS INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Julie Booth
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Julie Booth, Chief   Financial Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
FIFTH THIRD BANK
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Jessica Pfeifer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Jessica Pfeifer Title,   Vice President
    


 

EXHIBIT B TO THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT

 











 

EXHIBIT A

 

[***]
#### BLUTHENTHAL & BICKART *v.*SILVERMAN.

Where one places money in the hands of another to he used to pay certain creditors of the former, such creditors not being parties to the arrangement and not having accepted or ratified the same, the fund is the property of the depositor, and as such is subject to process of garnishment.

Submitted March 2,

Decided March 27, 1901.

Garnishment' — certiorari. Before Judge Reese. Elbert superior court. March 17, 1900.

*Rogers & Rogers,*for plaintiffs.

Simmons, C. J.

The plaintiffs sued out an attachment against Jake Silverman, and in aid thereof had a summons of garnishment issued against Mrs. S. Silverman. The garnishee answered not indebted, and this answer was traversed hy the plaintiffs. Upon the trial of the case before a jury in a justice’s court it appeared that the defendant had sold to the garnishee a stock of goods for a certain amount, receiving a portion thereof in cash, and leaving the balance in the hands of the garnishee for the purpose of paying off the defendant’s indebtedness to certain creditors. Such creditors were not parties to this arrangement for the payment of their claims. The garnishee paid off a few of the debts of the defendant before the service of the summons of garnishment, but at the time of such service had remaining in her hands more than enough to pay the claim of the plaintiffs. The jury found against the traverse, and the plaintiffs sued out a writ of certiorari. Upon the- hearing in the superior court, the judge overruled the certiorari. The plaintiffs excepted.

When the defendant sold his stock of goods to the garnishee at a fixed price, she became indebted to him for that amount. This indebtedness was reduced by the amounts she paid to him and, by his direction, to his creditors before the service of the summons of *103garnishment, but she was still indebted to him for sucb unpaid balance as remained in ber bands. To tbe amount of sucb balance sbe was still bis' debtor. Sbe can not be regarded as tbe debtor of tbe creditors or as bolding tbe fund for them; for, except as to those whose claims were actually paid, tbe creditors do not appear to have been parties to tbe agreement or to have subsequently accepted or ratified it. There was no promise made to tbe creditors by tbe garnishee that sbe would pay tbe money in ber hands to them. It was merely a deposit, with direction for its appbcation, and subject to revocation by tbe depositor. Tbe case is therefore distinguishable from *Watkins*v. *Pope,*38 *Ga.*514, and is controHed by *Trustees*v. *Pace,*15 *Ga.*486, *Mayer*v. *Bank,*51 *Ga.*325, and *Cox*v. *Reeves,*78 *Ga.*543. See also *Wimberly*v. *Bryan,*55 *Ga.*198, and *Martin*v. *Copeland,*77 *Ga.*374. The balance left in tbe bands of tbe garnishee at tbe time of tbe service of tbe summons of garnishment was tbe property of tbe depositor, subject to sucb appbcation as be might direct, and, therefore, subject to process of garnishment by bis creditors. Tbe certiorari should, therefore, have been sustained.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
Exhibit 13.1

906 CERTIFICATION

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Luca DAgnese, the Chief Executive Officer, and Javier Galán A., the Chief Financial Officer, of Enersis Américas S.A.,
each certifies that, to the best of their knowledge:



| | 1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Enersis.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2016



/s/ Luca DAgneseName: Luca DAgneseChief Executive Officer/s/ Javier Galán A.Name: Javier Galán A.Chief Financial Officer