alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION BY CEO AND CFO PURSUANT


TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT








The undersigned hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 of BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION (the “Company”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION and will be retained by BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This Certification is not “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification is not incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.








Date:  November 15, 2010




/s/ Wayne E. Ahart


Name:  Wayne E. Ahart


Titles:  Chairman of the Board of Directors


and Chief Executive Officer











Date:  November 15, 2010




/s/ Barry N. Shamas


Name:  Barry N. Shamas


Titles:  Executive Vice President,


Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
52.222-5 Construction Wage Rate Requirements-Secondary Site of the Work.       As prescribed in 22.407(h), insert the following provision:          Construction Wage Rate Requirements-Secondary Site of the Work (May 2014)                                       (a)                                                         (1) 								                The offeror shall notify the Government if the offeror intends to perform work at any secondary site of the work, as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the FAR clause at 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements, of this solicitation.                                                            (2) 								                If the offeror is unsure if a planned work site satisfies the criteria for a secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a determination from the Contracting Officer.                                                                             (b)                                                         (1) 								                If the wage determination provided by the Government for work at the primary site of the work is not applicable to the secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a wage determination from the Contracting Officer.                                                            (2) 								                The due date for receipt of offers will not be extended as a result of an offeror’s request for a wage determination for a secondary site of the work.                                                                    (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.222 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

EDGAR WILSANDER ARGUETA, a/k/a Jonathan E. Gutierrez, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00349-REP-1) 

Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: December 15, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Interim United States Attorney, S. 

David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Edgar Wilsander Argueta pled guilty to illegally 

reentering the United States after previously having been 

deported following an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to 

forty-eight months of imprisonment. Argueta appeals, alleging 

that the district court’s sentence was procedurally and 

substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm. 

Prior to sentencing the district court advised the 

parties it was considering an upward variance because of the 

defendant’s repeated violation of immigration laws and violent 

criminal activity. At the sentencing hearing, the court adopted 

the finding in the presentence report that Argueta’s advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines range was 30-37 months. Neither party 

objected to this finding. After considering this range, the 

factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), and 

the parties’ arguments, the court imposed a forty-eight-month 

sentence. The court provided specific reasons for imposing a 

sentence above the advisory range. 

Under these circumstances, we find the sentence was 

reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) 

(providing standard). In particular, we find no procedural or 

substantive error, in light of how the court calculated 

2 
3 

Argueta’s sentence and explained its reasons therefor. United 

States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 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. 

AFFIRMED
Subpart 43.3 - Forms

Parent topic: Part 43 - Contract Modifications

43.301 Use of forms.

(a)

(1) The Standard Form 30 (SF 30), Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, shall (except

for the options stated in 43.301(a)(2) or actions processed under part 15) be used for-

(i) Any amendment to a solicitation;

(ii) Change orders issued under the Changes clause of the contract;

(iii) Any other unilateral contract modification issued under a contract clause authorizing such

modification without the consent of the contractor;

(iv) Administrative changes such as the correction of typographical mistakes, changes in the paying

office, and changes in accounting and appropriation data;

(v) Supplemental agreements (see 43.103); and

(vi) Removal, reinstatement, or addition of funds to a contract.

(2) The SF 30 may be used for-

(i) Modifications that change the price of contracts for the acquisition of petroleum as a result of

economic price adjustment;

(ii) Termination notices; and

(iii) Purchase order modifications as specified in 13.302-3.

(3) If it is anticipated that a change will result in a price change, the estimated amount of the price

change shall not be shown on copies of SF 30 furnished to the contractor.

(b) The Optional Form 336 (OF 336), Continuation Sheet, or a blank sheet of paper, may be used as

a continuation sheet for a contract modification.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         272,258
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,893,753
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,101,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,159,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          429,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,729,962
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,159,948
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               627,939
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  541,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,145
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    60,145
<EPS-BASIC>                                       6.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.

12405 Powerscourt Drive

St. Louis, MO 63131

 

CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, AND SOLE DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

I, Steve A. Schumm, the Executive Vice President, Chief Adminstrative Officer, and Sole Director of the Corporate General Partner in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission: 

fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Steve A. Schumm	

Steve A. Schumm

Executive Vice President, Chief

Adminstrative Officer, and Sole Director

of the Corporate General Partner

August 14, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. FABIAN F. THOMAS, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 191 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 27th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                      33,001,504
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,150,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 36,951,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           113,315,834
<PP&E>                                      34,055,163
<DEPRECIATION>                              (7,218,868)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             161,052,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       46,094,524
<BONDS>                                     37,684,067
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       209,830
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,462,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               161,052,487
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           470,822,944
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              462,096,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,370,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,749,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                   270,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,479,663
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,479,663
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 1:98-CR-14-MMP/AK

MATTHEW SCOTT, 

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

This cause came before the Court for Defendant’s initial appearance on a petition by the 

United States Probation Office charging Defendant with violation of the terms of his supervised 

release. The Court advised Defendant of his constitutional rights, and Defendant waived 

preliminary hearing on the petition. The government did not request detention. 

 According, it is ORDERED that the Defendant shall appear before Judge Maurice M. 

Paul upon notice for a revocation hearing and the Clerk is hereby directed to send a separate 

notice setting a revocation hearing before the Honorable Maurice M. Paul. Until that 

appearance, Defendant will remain subject to the conditions of supervised release.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2007. 

 s/ A. KORNBLUM 

 ALLAN KORNBLUM

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
157 So.2d 461

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dan E. ROBINSON.

No. 46452.

Nov. 12, 1963.

*118Wm. Ray Bradford, Jr., Alexandria, for appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., F. Jean Pharis, Dist. Atty., A. M. D’Angelo, First Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

A Lunacy Commission was appointed to examine into the present sanity of the accused, Dan E. Robinson, charged by indictment for the murder of Elnora Dorsey, and after due hearing, was adjudged to be “presently insane” and was ordered to be confined1 in East Louisiana State Hospital, from which ruling he prosecutes this appeal.

In disposing of a motion by the State of Louisiana to dismiss the *appeal*
      *2*
      *,*we recognized that under the law prevailing in this state 3, the bills of exception reserved by the accused were neither submitted to the trial judge nor signed by him before the appeal was granted, and were therefore legally ineffective; nevertheless, we overruled the motion inasmuch as the accused was entitled to have this Court review the case for errors patent on the face of the record. An examination thereof discloses there are no such errors.4

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

HAWTHORNE, J., concurs in the decree with written reasons.

McCALEB, J., concurs in the decree.

.This was the third time he had been confined in East Louisiana State Hospital under similar orders; on the two previous occasions he had been remanded to the parish prison of Rapides Parish for trial as the psychiatric staff oi the Hospital had reported that his psychosis was in remission and that he was “able to assist counsel in his defense.”

. State v. Robinson, 244 La. 199, 151 So.2d 371.

. State v. Honeycutt, 218 La. 362, 49 So.2d 610 and cases cited therein.

. LSA-R.S. 15:503, State v. Pitcher, 236 La. 1, 106 So.2d 695.

HAWTHORNE, Justice

(concurring).

In view of the fact that the accused did not appear through counsel for oral argument of his appeal when fixed for hearing in this court, and did not file a brief, it is presumed that the appeal has been abandoned. State v. Carter, 226 La. 57, 74 So.2d 902; State v. Brumfield, 226 La. 103, 75 So.2d 23. Since there are no errors patent on the face of the record, I concur in the decree affirming the ruling appealed from.
# 31.101 Objectives.

In recognition of differing organizational characteristics, the cost principles and procedures in the succeeding subparts are grouped basically by organizational type; *e.g.,* commercial concerns and educational institutions. The overall objective is to provide that, to the extent practicable, all organizations of similar types doing similar work will follow the same cost principles and procedures. To achieve this uniformity, individual deviations concerning cost principles require advance approval of the *agency head* or designee. Class deviations for the civilian agencies require advance approval of the Civilian Agency *Acquisition* Council. Class deviations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration require advance approval of the Deputy *Chief Acquisition Officer*. Class deviations for the Department of Defense require advance approval of the Principal Director, Defense *Pricing* and *Contracting*, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for *Acquisition* and Sustainment.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 31.1 - Applicability
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT GENE WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:21cv19-TKW-MJF

SHERIFF TOMMY FORD 

and RICK ANGLIN, 

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case is before the Court based on Defendants’ motion for attorney and 

expert witness fees (Doc. 77). The motion seeks a determination that Defendants 

are entitled to fees under both 42 U.S.C. §1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.1 The motion 

represents that Plaintiff “objects to the relief sought in the Motion,” but Plaintiff did 

1

 Arguably, the motions should have been filed as separate documents because Fed. R. Civ. P. 

11(c)(2) provides that “[a] motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion.” 

Noncompliance with that requirement has been described as a “fatal defect.” See, e.g., O’Boyle v. 

Sweetapple, 2016 WL 9559919, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2016) (denying Rule 11 motion as 

“procedurally defective” because it was combined with a motion seeking fees under §1988). 

However, there is also persuasive authority for the proposition that combining motions for fees 

under Rule 11 and other statutes does not violate this requirement. See Ridder v. City of 

Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 294 n.7 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[T]his requirement [in Rule 11(c)(2)] is 

intended to highlight the sanctions request by preventing it from being tacked onto or buried in 

motions on the merits, such as motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. The requirement does 

not foreclose combining a Rule 11 request with other provisions regulating attorney behavior, such 

as § 1988 and § 1927. To require [the movant] to request Rule 11 sanctions separate from other 

requests for attorney fees based on the same conduct would amount to needless duplication of 

paper, time, and effort, for practitioners as well as the courts.”).

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 80 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 2
2

not file a memorandum in opposition to the motion within the time prescribed by 

Local Rule 7.1(E).

The Court could grant the motion by default under Local Rule 7.1(H), but 

before the Court does so, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to explain why 

no memorandum in opposition was filed and explain why she “objects” to the relief 

requested in the motion. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 7 days from the date of this Order to 

show cause why Defendants’ fee entitlement motion should not be granted. Failure 

to respond will result in an order granting the motion by default under Local Rule 

7.1(H), with jurisdiction being reserved to determine the amount of the fee award in 

accordance with Local Rule 54.1(E)-(G).

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2022.

__________________________________

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 80 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors and ShareholderWashington Mutual Bank

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Servicer’s Report on Assessment ofCompliance, that WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (“WAAC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank and subsidiaries, complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s(“SEC”) Regulation AB for the securitizations of pools of mortgage loans that were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and prior to January 1, 2007 for which WAAC performed servicing functions set forth in the Item 1122(d) and thatincluded one or more classes of publicly offered securities registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, excluding criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(3)(i)(B) and1122 (d)(3)(i)(D)-(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by WAAC with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for WAAC’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management’s assertion about WAAC’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about WAAC’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determiningwhether WAAC performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activitiesperformed by WAAC during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detectnoncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by WAAC during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on WAAC’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that WAAC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the Platform isfairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Seattle, WashingtonFebruary 22, 2007