alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2











PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Top Ships Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alexandros Tsirikos, the Chief Financial Officer of 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:





(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.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: April 12, 2011





/s/ Alexandros Tsirikos


Alexandros Tsirikos


Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
### Part H—Identification of Vessels
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HENRY R. HU and STEPHANIE F. HU, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LANEY LEE, JASON WANG, STEWARD 

WANG, ANITA BEI HUANG, JERRY 

HUANG, EDWARD WONG, KING MARK, I95 MALL OF ASIA INC., A.T.E.C. 

HOLDING INC., AMERICAN PRODUCTS 

EXHIBITION & EXCHANGE CENTER 

(U.S.A.), INC., ETRADE GUARANTEE 

ASSURANCE CORP., EASY EXPRESS 

SERVICES CORP., KATHY WANG, RUNAN 

ZHANG, ANDY TING, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-2588 SC 

AMENDED ORDER RE: DEFENDANT 

RUNAN ZHANG'S NOTICE OF 

MOTION AND MOTION TO EXTEND

TIME, MOTION TO DISMISS, 

MOTION TO STRIKE

 The Court has received Defendant Runan Zhang's ex parte 

motion, entitled Notice of Motion and Motion to Extend Time, Motion 

to Dismiss, Motion to Strike ("Zhang Motion"). Defendant Runan 

Zhang is ordered to resubmit the Zhang Motion in compliance with 

General Order No. 45, regarding Electronic Case Filing, no later 

than Wednesday, February 10, 2010. 

 Plaintiff Henry R. Hu and Stephanie F. Hu ("Plaintiffs") must 

submit a partial response to the Zhang Motion no later than 

Tuesday, February 16, 2010. This response need only address the 

question of whether this Court should grant Defendant Runan Zhang's 

Case 3:09-cv-02588-SC Document 41 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

request to retroactively extend the deadline for responding to 

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint; it need not address the 

merits of the Zhang Motion with regard to the motions to dismiss 

and strike. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may file a statement of nonopposition to the Zhang Motion. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 8, 2010 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02588-SC Document 41 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Italian Vineyard Co., appellee, v. E. E. Walsh, trading as Walsh Transfer Co., appellant.

Gen. No. 28,200.

Suit for value of thirteen barrels of wine delivered for storage. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed May 31, 1923.

Rehearing denied June 12, 1923.

McArdle & McArdle, for appellant. Wolfsohn & Fireman, for appellee; Harry J. Fireman, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1365

MODESTO SANTIAGO ALLASI, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-194-363) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 16, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antoinette J. Rizzi, LAW OFFICES OF ANTOINETTE J. RIZZI, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Kiesler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable here under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA. 2 PER CURIAM: Modesto Santiago Allasi, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his application for adjustment of status. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Allasi is statutorily ineligible for the relief sought. See8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994); * Matter of Namio , 14 I. & N. Dec. 412, 414 (BIA 1973). We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### Wolverine Winter-Seal Corp., Respondent, v. Way Jewelers, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Motion to extend time for argument of appeal to and including November 1960 Term of court granted.
### §53405. Obligations and rights under operating agreements

(a) Operation of Vessel.—An operating agreement under this chapter shall require that, during the period the vessel covered by the agreement is operating under the agreement the vessel shall—

(1) be operated in the United States foreign commerce, mixed United States foreign commerce and domestic trade allowed under a registry endorsement issued under section 12111 of this title, in foreign-to-foreign commerce, or under a charter to the United States;

(2) not be operated in the coastwise trade except as described in paragraph (1); and

(3) be documented under chapter 121 of this title.

(b) Annual Payments by the Secretary.—

(1) In general.—An operating agreement under this chapter shall require, subject to the availability of appropriations, that the Secretary make a payment to the program participant in accordance with section 53406.

(2) Operating agreement is an obligation of the united states government.—An operating agreement under this chapter constitutes a contractual obligation of the United States Government to pay the amounts provided for in the agreement to the extent of actual appropriations.

(c) Documentation Requirement.—Each vessel covered by the operating agreement, including an agreement terminated under section 53404(c)(2), shall remain documented under chapter 121 of this title until the date the operating agreement would terminate according to its terms.

(d) National Security Requirements.—

(1) In general.—A program participant with respect to an operating agreement, including an agreement terminated under section 53404(c)(2), shall continue to be bound by the provisions of section 53407 until the date the operating agreement would terminate according to its terms.

(2) Emergency preparedness agreement.—All terms and conditions of an Emergency Preparedness Agreement entered into under section 53407 shall remain in effect until the date the operating agreement would terminate according to its terms, except that the terms of such Emergency Preparedness Agreement may be modified by the mutual consent of the program participant, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Defense.

(e) Transfer of Operating Agreements.—A program participant may transfer an operating agreement (including all rights and obligations under the agreement) to any person that is eligible to enter into that operating agreement under this chapter, if the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense determine that the transfer is in the best interests of the United States.

(f) Replacement of Vessels Covered by Agreements.—A program participant may replace the vessel with another vessel that is eligible to be included in the Fleet under section 53402(b), if the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, approves the replacement of the vessel. No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision by the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of Defense pertaining to the replacement of a vessel under this section.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. C, title XXXV, §3511(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4414.)
Exhibit 99.2
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
                ------------------------------------------------

     I, Ronald N. Zebeck, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Metris
Companies Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Metris Companies Inc.


                                /s/ Ronald N. Zebeck
                                -----------------------------------
                                Ronald N. Zebeck
                                Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                (Principal Executive Officer)
                                October 22, 2002
Exhibit 99.5

Annual Certification

Re: Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2004-HE4 (the "Trust"),
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-HE4, issued pursuant to
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as June 1, 2004 (the "Pooling
and Servicing Agreement"), by and among Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc.,
as depositor (the "Depositor"), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
trustee (the "Trustee"), HomEq Servicing Corporation, as servicer (the
"Servicer"), and NC Capital Corporation, as responsible party

I, Arthur Q. Lyon, certify to the Depositor and the Trustee, and their
officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that
they will rely upon this certification, that:

A review of the activities of the Servicer during the 2004 calendar year
and the Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
has been made under my supervision, the Servicer has complied with the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects and, to the best
of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has materially fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout
such calendar year.

Date: March 14, 2005

HomEq Servicing Corporation
/s/: Arthur Lyon
Arthur Q. Lyon
President
§ 583.120 Grants for supportive services costs. ( a ) *General.* HUD will provide grants to pay (as described in § 583.130 of this part) for the actual costs of supportive services for homeless persons for up to five years. All or part of the supportive services may be provided directly by the recipient or by arrangement with public or private service providers.
( b ) *Supportive services costs.* Costs associated with providing supportive services include salaries paid to providers of supportive services and any other costs directly associated with providing such services. For a transitional housing project, supportive services costs also include the costs of services provided to former residents of transitional housing to assist their adjustment to independent living. Such services may be provided for up to six months after they leave the transitional housing facility.
[58 FR 13871, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 36891, July 19, 1994]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         301,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,140,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,099,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,125,000
<PP&E>                                       2,958,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,276,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,242,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,587,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    51,149,216
<OTHER-SE>                                     537,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,242,000
<SALES>                                        268,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               268,000
<CGS>                                          254,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,352,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,118,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,118,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William F. Johnson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In affirming this judgment we do not retreat from our repeated admonition that the evidence should be marshalled and the contentions of the parties analyzed and explained in the charge of the trial court (cf. *People*v. *Tisdale,*18 A D *8542d 274, 277 and eases therein cited). The failure to do so, under the facts of this case, however, does not require reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of burglary third degree, and grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
#### GADSKI-TAUSCHER v. AMERICAN SURETY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

Action by Johannah Gadski-Tauscher against the American Surety Company. No_ opinion. Motion denied. Memorandum per curiam.
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, Leslie A. Blodgett , Chief Executive Officer, and I, Myles B.
McCormick, Chief Financial Officer, each certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Bare Escentuals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 28, 2008, to which
this certificate is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and that information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 26, 2009



By:

/s/ LESLIE A. BLODGETTLeslie A. BlodgettChief Executive Officer and DirectorBy:

/s/ MYLES B. MCCORMICKMyles B. McCormickExecutive Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Chief OperatingOfficer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after
the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 131]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ131.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1359]]

Public Law 110-131
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
    4320 Blue Parkway in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``Wallace S. 
   Hartsfield Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Nov. 30, 2007 -  [H.R. 
                                3572]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WALLACE S. HARTSFIELD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4320 Blue Parkway in Kansas City, Missouri, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Wallace S. Hartsfield Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Wallace S. 
Hartsfield Post Office Building''.

    Approved November 30, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3572 (S. 2150):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Oct. 15, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
CAUSE NO. 92-02-52.048FM 

IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

THE MARRIAGE OF § 

§ 

PHILLIP BEAN TANNER § 354TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

AND § 

PEGGY ANN PHILIPS TANNER § HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Plaintiff, PEGGY ANN PHILIPS TANNER (referred to herein as PEGGY 

HOLMES), party to this case, files this Notice of Appeal seeking to alter the trial 

court's judgment or other appealable order. 

The trial court, trial court case number and style of this matter are shown in 

the above caption. 

The judgment or order appealed from was signed on February 23, 2015, and 

was titled Final Order on Motion for Enforcement. 

PEGGY HOLMES desires to appeal the Final Order on Motion for 

Enforcement, as well as all adverse interlocutory rulings that merged into that 

document. 

This appeal is being taken to either the Fifth Court of Appeals. 

This notice is being filed by PEGGY HOLMES. 

ljPag e Notic e o f Appea l 

ACCEPTED

05-15-00399-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

3/27/2015 2:23:26 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

05-15-00399-CV

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 3/27/2015 2:23:26 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
Respectfully submitted, 

PHILIPS ANO EPPERSON ATTORNEYS, LP 

2301 Virginia Parkway 

McKinney, Texas 75071 

Telephone: (972)562-9440 

Facsimile: (972) 562-2839 

By 

CHARLES PHILIPS 

State Bar No. 00784760 

Attorney for PEGGY HOLMES 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on March o<L ¥ , 2015, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff s Notice of 

Appeal was served by mail on Mr. H. Craig Black at 2510 Lee Street, Greenville 

TX 75401. 

MREBS PHILIPS 

Attorney for PEGGY HOLMES 

2 | Page Notic e o f Appea l
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CARLOS ALAMILLA RAMIREZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50055

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03097-LAB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 8, 2015** 

Pasadena California

Before: KLEINFELD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges and SEEBORG,*** District

Judge. 

FILED

APR 14 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Carlos Ramirez appeals the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty

plea conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the sentence. 

Whether the government violated the terms of a plea agreement is reviewed de

novo. United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). 

But whether the facts demonstrate that there was a breach of a plea agreement is

reviewed for clear error. United States v. Salemo, 81 F.3d 1453, 1460 (9th Cir.

1996). 

The government did not advocate for a two-level enhancement for a stolen

firearm in violation of Ramirez’s plea agreement. By its plain terms the agreement

states, “[n]othing in this plea agreement shall be construed as limiting the

Government’s duty to provide complete and accurate facts to the district court and

the U.S. Probation Office.” It was not clear error for the district court to find that

the prosecutor was not advocating for a two-level enhancement when he

acknowledged to the probation officer, in a phone call prior to sentencing, that the

gun found in Ramirez’s car was reported stolen. See United States v. Hinkson, 585

F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Even absent such a finding of fact,

2
the record in this case would not support the conclusion that the government

breached the plea agreement. 

Although it is debatable whether a report of a gun being stolen is conclusive

evidence that it was indeed stolen, here, it was not clear error for the district judge

to rely on the PSR and find by a preponderance of the evidence that the gun was

stolen.1

 See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

1

 We will, however, grant Ramirez’s motion to strike page 8 of the

government’s supplemental excerpts of record containing the police report of

Ramirez’s arrest, because the document was not before the district court.

3