alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of PotashCorporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,that:     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”),of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 3, 2006 /s/ William J. Doyle   William J. Doyle   *President and Chief Executive Officer*      Dated: November 3, 2006 /s/ Wayne R. Brownlee   Wayne R. Brownlee   *Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and ChiefFinancial Officer*        The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item601(6)(32) of Regulation S-K, 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 beingfiled as part of the Form 10-Q.
From: Laney, Michael N.

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:21 PM

To: 'Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov'

Subject:NOx and SNCR at Lafarges's Calera and Sugar Creek plants

Keith,

  

Lafarge, Calera, AL

  

I spoke with Katrina Scanlan (334‐270‐5677) with the Alabama Dept of Environmental Mgt about  

NOx emissions and use of SNCR at the Lafarge Calera plant. She provided the following  

information:

  

‐The PH/PC kiln began operation in 2001.

‐The kiln is a KHD Humboldt design.

‐The SNCR is required to operate during the ozone season only, May 1 through September 30.  

She has no information on the SNCR or its operation.

‐The NOx limits are 221 tons/30 day period or 1870 tons/12 month period.

‐It was her impression that because the kiln utilized SCC and LNB and that pre‐SNCR NOx levels  

were low and so the removal efficiency of SNCR was on the order of 10‐15%.

The kiln feed rate cannot exceed 3,088,800 tons per consecutive 12 month period.

‐The state requires NOx CEMs, but the state does not require reports of CEMs results, only that  

they have not exceeded their limit.

  

Lafarge, Sugar Creek, MO

  

I spoke with the Peter Yronwode and Tiffany Campbell with the MO Dept of Natural Resources.  

They are suppose to provide me with a contact.

  

  

  

  

Michael Laney

Environmental Engineering

Environmental Health & Safety Division

RTI International

TEL:  919‐316‐3413

FAX:  919‐316‐3420

EMAIL:  mnl@rti.org
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             9,080
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       67,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 166,104
<PP&E>                                           494,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                   176,978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   529,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            113,637
<BONDS>                                          258,113
<COMMON>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     529,171
<SALES>                                          491,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 491,200
<CGS>                                            388,423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    464,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    2,759
<INCOME-TAX>                                       1,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,649
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,649
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.18


</TABLE>
(logo) LNR

         Partners, LLC

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

** **

** **

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, beingthe President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), asspecial servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for thetransactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject toany limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, onbehalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officerof the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1. A review of the activities performedby the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2016 andending on December 31, 2016 (or any other shorter period set forth on ScheduleI hereto) (the "Reporting Period"), and the Special Servicer'sperformance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under mysupervision; and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteriaunder Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled itsobligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

LNR Partners, LLC, 

a Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 22, 2017

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue ∙Suite700 ∙ Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 ∙Fax: (305)695-5601

 

 

**Schedule I**

 

MSBAM 2015-C26

Morgan Stanley Bank of AmericaMerrill Lynch Trust 2015-C26, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2015-C26

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1221 Avenue of the Americas 

New York NY 10020 

James Y. Lee

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 Broadway 

New York NY 10036

Stephen Holmes

 

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

600 Third Avenue, 40th Floor

Att: {Pool Name} 

New York NY 10016 

Group

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

9062 Old Annapolis Road 

Columbia MD 21045 

Group Notices

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

9062 Old Annapolis Road 

MAC: R1204-010

Columbia MD 21045

Irene Kaplanis

 

Wilmington Trust, National Association

1100 North Market Street

Wilimington DE 19890 

Dorri Costello

 

Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation 

1100 North Market Street

Wilmington DE 19890 

Group
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          32,810
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  347,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,253)
<INVENTORY>                                    345,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               751,113
<PP&E>                                       3,680,887
<DEPRECIATION>                               (701,265)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,430,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          448,612
<BONDS>                                      1,079,165
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,225,504
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,066,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,430,364
<SALES>                                        583,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               583,812
<CGS>                                          433,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  433,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,883
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,682
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,673
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             63,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,009
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000380

08-MAY-2020

08:05 AM
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-12-00053-CR

________________

RICKY LAMAR RANDOLPH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-12406

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Ricky Lamar Randolph guilty of felony theft, and the trial 

court assessed punishment at sixteen years of imprisonment.

Randolph’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 12, 2012, we granted an extension of time for Randolph 

to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Randolph.
2

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no 

arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We note that the trial court’s judgment 

incorrectly recites that Randolph’s offense is a second-degree felony. This Court has the 

authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to correct a clerical error. Bigley v. State, 

865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete “2nd degree felony” 

from the section of the judgment entitled “Degree of Offense” and substitute “state jail 

felony, sequenced prior felony convictions” in its place. We affirm the trial court’s

judgment as modified.

1

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

_________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on October 8, 2012

Opinion Delivered October 31, 2012

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

 

1Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Rural Housing Service

###### Rural Business-Cooperative Service

###### Rural Utilities Service

# AGENCIES:

Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Rural Housing Service (RHS), Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on July 23, 2009, at 74 FR 36448. The document contained an error related to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information regarding this correction should be directed to Michele Brooks, 202-690-1078.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Need for Correction

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for Broadband Loans and Grants is incorrectly identified, which could affect locating this program within the CFDA.

## Correction of Publication

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of July 23, 2009, in FR Doc. E9-17512, on page 36450, column 2, under I. A. Affected Programs, the CFDA number “10.886” is corrected to read “10.787”.                

Dated: July 28, 2009.

Dallas Tonsager,

Under Secretary, Rural Development.

[FR Doc. E9-18571 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee.                    

*Date:*                         February 19-20, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Doubletree Hotel Washington, DC, 1515 Rhode Island Ave., NW., State Room, Washington, DC 20005.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Katrin Eichelberg, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-0818,                         *keichelberg@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 22, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-1855 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 13.1

 

CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connectionwith AC Immune SA’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) for the purposeof complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) andSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

Andrea Pfeifer, the Chief Executive Officer of AC Immune SA,certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:

 

1.       the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.       the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AC ImmuneSA.

 

Date: March 17, 2017
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**21 KA 13-01756**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAMUEL J. SAELI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KRISTIN M. PREVE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (THOMAS B. LITSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered June 19, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law former § 175.35). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence. “[N]o mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” ( People v Pimentel
, 108 AD3d 861, 862, lv denied 21 NY3d 1076; see People v Maracle , 19 NY3d 925, 928; People v Peterson , 111 AD3d 1412, 1412). Although defendant executed a written waiver of the right to appeal in which he waived “any and all sentencing matters,” we conclude that the written waiver “does not foreclose our review of the severity of the sentence because [Supreme Court] ‘did not inquire of defendant whether he understood the written waiver or whether he had even read the waiver before signing it’ ” ( People v Donaldson , 130 AD3d 1486, 1486-1487, quoting People v Bradshaw , 18 NY3d 257, 262). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence of 6 months of incarceration and 5 years of probation is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant has completed serving the term of incarceration, and the period of probation is precisely what defense counsel requested at sentencing. In any event, we conclude that the sentence is appropriate in light of defendant’s**-2- 21 KA 13-01756** 
criminal history and the favorable nature of the plea bargain.

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alberto SILLA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 00-50256.

D.C. No. CR-99-00752-CBM-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*909Submitted June 10, 2002 *.

Decided June 18, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alberto Silla appeals his guilty plea conviction and the 151-month sentence imposed for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Silla’s attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), on the ground that the appeal presents no arguable issues.

Because our independent review of the record discloses no arguable issues, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Neenah Enterprises, Inc. pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) orRule 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Gary W. LaChey, Corporate Vice President — Finance and Chief Financial Officer of NeenahEnterprises, Inc., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Neenah Enterprises, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.DATE: February 14, 2008         /s/ Gary W. LaChey   Gary W. LaChey   Corporate Vice President — Financeand Chief Financial Officer  
33