alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of The Furia Organization, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Martin Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Martin Cohen
----------------------------
Martin Cohen
Chief Financial Officer
February 12, 2003
#### § 52.17 Forms of certificates.

Inspection certificates, certificates of sampling or loading, and other memoranda concerning inspection service shall be issued on forms approved by the Administrator.
```

[House Report 107-773]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-773

======================================================================

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5710, HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

                                _______
                                

  November 13 (legislative day, November 12), 2002.--Referred to the 
                House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 600]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 600, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 5710, to 
establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other 
purposes, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of 
debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.


```
Exhibit 32

     CERTIFICATIONS OF PATRICK A. CUSTER, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
       PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VPGI Corp.
 (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, the
 undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S1350,
 as adopted pursuant to S906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
 best of my knowledge:

      1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.


 Date:  November 14, 2005      /s/    PATRICK A. CUSTER
                               -------------------------------
                               Patrick A. Custer
                               Chief Executive Officer
                               and Principal Financial Officer


 The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form
 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as
 part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any
 filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
 regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EX-35 (g)
(logo) National City
       Mortgage

National City Mortgage Co.
A Subsidiary of National City Bank of Indiana
3232 Newmark Drive * Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Telephone: (937) 910-1200

Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1820
Dayton, Ohio 45401-1820

COMPANY CERTIFICATION

RE: See attached for series (Exhibit A)

I, T. Jackson Case, Jr., hereby certify to GS Mortgage Securities Corp., that I
am a duly elected Executive Vice President of National City Mortgage Corporation
(the "Company"), a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio and
further as follows:

(i)  A review of the activities of the Company during the immediately preceding
     calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) and of its performance under
     the Agreement and any applicable Reconstitution Agreement during such
     period has been made under such officer's supervision, and

(ii) to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the Company
     has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement and any applicable
     Reconstitution Agreement in all material respects throughout such calendar
     year (or applicable portion thereof) or, if there has been a failure to
     fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifically
     identifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and the
     status thereof.

National City Mortgage

Certified by: /s/ T Jackson Case, Jr.

Name:   T Jackson Case, Jr.

Title:  Executive Vice President

Date: 2/19/2007


No one Cares More!


(page)


Exhibit A

V37     GSAA 2006-11                    898     GSR 2004-13F
V39     GSAA 2006-12                    X03     GSR 2004-14
V42     GSAA 2006-14                    823     GSR 2004-7
V41     GSAA 2006-16                    826     GSR 2004-9
V55     GSAA 2006-20                    W47     GSAA 2005-11
V07     GSAA 2006-3                     W69     GSAA 2005-14
V11     GSAA 2006-5                     W75     GSAA 2005-15
V30     GSAA 2006-9                     X98     GSAA 2005-6
V43     GSR 2006-8F                     W13     GSAA 2005-7
V47     GSR 2006-9F                     W25     GSAA 2005-9
V05     GSR 2006-AR1                    X72     GSR 2005-2F
V18     GSR 2006-AR2                    X80     GSR 2005-3F
212     GOLDMAN SACHS MTG CO            X83     GSR 2005-4F
912     GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE CO       W05     GSR 2005-5F
909     GSR 2003-1                      W19     GSR 2005-6F
910     GSR 2003-2F                     W44     GSR 2005-7F
919     GSR 2003-3F                     W59     GSR 2005-8F
928     GSR 2003-4F                     X88     GSR 2005-AR2
952     GSR 2003-7F                     X89     GSR 2005-AR3
965     GSR 2003-9                      W18     GSR 2005-AR4
952     GSR 2004-3F                     W31     GSR 2005-AR5
965     GSR 2004-6F                     W61     GSR 2005-AR7
864     GSAA 2004-7                     X56     GSR 2005-AR1
826     GSR 2004-10F
826     GSR 2004-11
892     GSR 2004-12
(April 29, 1969)

#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property to be Acquired for the New Municipal Building and Others (Manhattan Civic Center Area) Bounded by Broadway and Other Streets, in the Borough of Manhattan. In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property to be Acquired for an Addition to the Site for a New Municipal Building Annex and Others (Manhattan Civic Center Area Addition) Bounded by Broadway and Other Streets, in the Borough of Manhattan. Frances Boehm et al., Respondents; Duane Reade Corp. et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Judgments entered July 3, 1968, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed without costs or disbursements. The several appeals herein present the basic issue as to whether the trial court erred in its determination that claimants were entitled as just compensation to the interest on the respective awards at 4% from the respective vesting dates to August 1, 1966 and at 6% from August 1, 1966 to the dates of payment. We conclude that the determination was correct and adopt the reasoning of the' trial court (57 Misc 2d 156). Inasmuch, however, as the city contends that a contrary conclusion was reached in *Matter of Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. (Hudson Rapid Tubes Corp.)*(20 N Y 2d 457) we comment briefly thereon. In that decision the court rejected (upon its holding in *Matter of City of New York [Fifth Ave. Coach Lines],*18 N Y 2d 212) the contention of condemnees that the 4% statu-. tory interest limitation (L. 1939, ch. 585) could not be constitutionally applied ’ to the period subsequent to January 1, 1966. In so rejecting the contention the court wrote (20 N Y 2d 457, 473) that “No substantial reason has been suggested requiring a different result in [this] case”. The absence of such “substantial reason ” in that record (in contradistinction to the instant case) is revealed by a brief recital of the facts relating to that issue in *Matter of Port Auth. (supra).*There title vested in the condemnor on September 1, 1962 (48 Misc 2d 485, 487). Following the subsequent taking of proof on the question of the permissible rate of interest the trial court wrote (50 Misc 2d 613, 616): “ Of the several years involved here, [1962 to 1966, inclusive] the proof is satisfactory only as to the year 1966 in establishing the statutorily prescribed 4% interest to be unjust. This is not enough to warrant a departure from the interest rate currently approved by the latest decisions of the New York appellate courts.” In this framework we interpret the language of our highest court (as to the absence of a “ substantial reason ”) to be in substance an approval of the conclusion reached in that case at the trial level by Justice Loreto. We do not construe the writing to be an effective 'dosing of the door to future re-examination of the issue as was done herein by the late Justice Geller. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Markewich and Bastow, JJ.
#### Elizabeth Alden, Appellant, v St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, Respondent.

Submitted June 11, 2007;

decided July 2, 2007

Reported below, 37 AD3d 1047.

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 8, 2007 dismissal order denied *[see 8*NY3d 975].
13.106 Soliciting competition, evaluation of

quotations or offers, award and

documentation.

13.106-1 Soliciting competition.

13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers.

13.106-3 Award and documentation.

Parent topic: Subpart 13.1 - Procedures
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DONALD CLAYTON CHILDS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5803-MCR-HTC

GRAHAM FOUNTAIN,

ERIC ESMOND,

SUSAN PRIDDY,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated February 8, 2021. ECF No. 11. The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should 

be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05803-MCR-HTC Document 12 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5803-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

(1)The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

(2)This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute 

and failure to follow a Court order.

(3)The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of March 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05803-MCR-HTC Document 12 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 457.6 [Reserved]
#### § 51.29 Order in which made.

Appeal inspections shall be made, as soon as practicable, following the time requested by the applicant and in the order in which applications are received. They shall take precedence over all other pending applications, except applications for inspections covering lots involved in complaints filed pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 as amended (7 U.S.C. 499a *et seq.*).
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0012. STATE OF GEORGIA v. JIGNESHKUMAR PATEL et al.

After the State commenced civil forfeiture proceedings, claimant

Jigneshkumar Patel filed a motion to dismiss. On June 24, 2019, the trial court

entered an order dismissing the complaint. The State filed both an application for

interlocutory appeal and this application for discretionary appeal. We granted the

interlocutory application. See Case No. A19I0284, granted Aug. 7, 2019. Because

this application for discretionary appeal is duplicative, it is hereby DISMISSED as

superfluous.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 15, 2019

08/15/2019
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. CASE NO. 1:98cr5-MP-GRJ

BRODDRICK DESHON MONGO,

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated November 9, 2011. (Doc. 55). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections.1

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted

in part and rejected in part.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding defendant’s

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 39) is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 39) is DENIED and a

certificate of appealability is DENIED, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

3. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding defendant’s

motion for correction of sentence (doc. 29) is rejected.

No objections have been filed.

1
Page 2 of 2

4. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, for all further proceedings with the

suggestion that defendant be allowed to refile or amend his sentence calculation claim

(doc. 29) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition.

DONE and ORDERED on this 23rd day of December, 2011.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 1:98cr5-MP-GRJ
# L_2014331EN.01004001.xml

| 18.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 331/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 331/40

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2014/252/EU of 14 April 2014 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 134 of 7 May 2014
  )

On page 1, recital 3:

for:

‘In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.’

read:

‘In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified, by letter of 21 September 2012, its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.’

---
Exhibit 34.4 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

To Board of Directors and Stockholders of SunTrust Bank:

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria thatSunTrust Bank complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Genworth Global Funding Trusts (the Platform), as of December 31, 2006 and for the yearthen ended for criterion 1122(d)4(ii). Exhibit A to management’s assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activitiesrelated to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactionsand servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination onthe Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the Genworth Global Funding Trusts is fairly stated, in all material respects.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:95cr4036-WS

BRUNSTRICK DUCHE PARRIS,

Defendant.

 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO BE RESENTENCED

Before the court is the defendant’s motion to be resentenced. Doc. 119. The

defendant has advised the court that, contrary to the recommendation made by the

court at sentencting, the BOP cannot give him credit for the time he served in the

Florida Department of Corrections. He asks this court to resentence him to effectuate

the court’s intentions regarding his sentence. The government has advised that it has

no objection to the defendant’s request. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The defendant’s sentence shall be reduced to a term of seven (7) months.

2. The clerk shall prepare an amended judgment to reflect the seven-month

sentence that was intended by the court.

Case 4:95-cr-04036-WS Document 120 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:95cr0436-WS

DONE AND ORDERED this May 25, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:95-cr-04036-WS Document 120 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 2
19.506 Documentation requirements.       (a)                                                         (1) 								                The contracting officer shall	document the rationale when a contract is not totally set aside	for small business in accordance with 19.502-2.                                                            (2) 								                The contracting	officer shall document the rationale when a multiple-award contract	is not partially set aside, not reserved, and does not allow for	setting aside of orders, when these authorities could have been	used.                                                                             (b) 						            If applicable,	the documentation shall include the rationale for not accepting	the recommendations made by the agency Director of the Office of	Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, or, for the Department	of Defense, the Director of the Office of Small Business Programs,	or the Director's designee, as to whether a particular acquisition	should be awarded under subparts 19.5, 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15.                                          (c) 						            Documentation	is not required if a contract award is anticipated to a small business	under subpart 19.5, 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 19.5 - Small Business Total Set-Asides, Partial Set-Asides, and Reserves