alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT  99.2

                         AMERICAN ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                            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 American Energy Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2002, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Larry  Elliott,  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Directors  and the Principal
Accounting  Officer  of  the  Company, hereby 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/  Larry  Elliott
                                             -------------------
                                             Larry  Elliott
                                             Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                             and the Principal Accounting
                                             Officer
January 10,  2002

                                       16




<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 23, 2019

p0116

Order 

Clerk

January 23, 2019

158154

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158154

COA: 334614

Saginaw CC: 15-041847-FC

DOMINIQUE ARNETT RAMSEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu 

of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment 

reversing the Saginaw Circuit Court’s March 3, 2016 decision to grant a new trial on 

grounds that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, and we REMAND 

this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on reconsideration granted. The 

Court of Appeals held that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting a new trial 

“for the same reasons” as it erred in deciding that the evidence was insufficient to convict 

the defendant of conspiracy, and found that “the record evidence did not preponderate 

against the jury’s verdict to the extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Though 

there may be sufficient evidence to convict when the evidence is viewed in the light most 

favorable to the prosecutor, that does not render a decision on the great weight of the 

evidence an abuse of discretion. See People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 633-635 (1998). 

On remand, the Court of Appeals shall determine whether the decision to grant a new trial 

was within the range of principled outcomes in light of the trial court’s finding that the jury 

verdict resulted in a miscarriage of justice. MCR 6.431(B). In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
IIA 

★(Star Print)

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 38 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway Administration relating to ‘‘Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric 

Vehicle Chargers’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2023 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. 

CRAMER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Federal Highway Administration relating to ‘‘Waiver 

of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Fed4 eral Highway Administration relating to ‘‘Waiver of Buy 

5 America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers’’ (88 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

SJ 38 IS1S 

1 Fed. Reg. 10619 (February 21, 2023)), and such rule 

2 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
NUMBERS 13-14-00006-CR AND 13-14-00007-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

RAUL GARZA SALAZAR, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 445th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Raul Garza Salazar, has filed a “Motion to Abate Order Resolving to 

Decide Appeal Without Reporter’s Record Until Trial Court Makes Decision on Indigency 

of Appellant.” According to the motion, appellant has become indigent, has recently lost 

his job, and is without money to pay for the reporter’s record. 
2

After careful consideration, appellant’s motion is GRANTED. We ABATE these

appeals and REMAND these causes to the trial court for further proceedings. Upon 

remand, the trial court shall cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct 

a hearing to determine the following: 

1. Whether appellant desires to prosecute these appeals;

2. Whether appellant is indigent;

3. Whether appellant is entitled to a free appellate record due to his 

indigency;

4. Whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel or is proceeding with 

retained counsel, Larry Warner; and, 

5. What orders if any, should be entered to assure the filing of appropriate 

notices and documentation to dismiss appellant's appeals if appellant does 

not desire to prosecute these appeals, or if appellant desires to prosecute 

these appeals, to assure that the appeals will be diligently pursued.

If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue these appeals and 

that appellant is indigent and entitled to court-appointed counsel, the trial court shall 

appoint counsel to represent appellant in these appeals. If counsel is appointed, the 

name, address, telephone number, email address and state bar number of the appointed 

counsel shall be included in the order of appointment. 

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental 

clerk's record and shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any proceedings to be 

prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and reporter's record, if any, shall be filed 
3

with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this 

order.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

19th day of June, 2014.
§ 1609.1 Purpose. This part is designed: ( a ) To ensure that recipients do not use scarce legal services resources when private attorneys are available to provide effective representation and
( b ) To assist eligible clients to obtain appropriate and effective legal assistance.
Exhibit 34.3

[LOGO] PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
                                                  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                  300 Madison Avenue
                                                  New York NY 10017
                                                  Telephone (646) 471-3000
                                                  www.pwc.com



             Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of Residential Capital, LLC:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1122
Servicing Criteria, that GMAC Mortgage, LLC (the "Company"), a subsidiary of
Residential Capital, LLC, complied with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the
GMACM Private Platform (the "Platform"), as of and for the year then ended
December 31, 2006, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii); 1122(d)(2)(iv);
1122(d)(3)(i),(ii);and 1122(d)(4)(i),(ii), which the Company has determined
are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to
the Platform. Appendix 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's compliance with the
servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination 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 servicing criteria 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 activities related 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 transactions and
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 have
affected 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 on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company compiled with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006, for the GMACM Private Platform is fairly stated, in all
material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------

New York, New York
March 6, 2007
```

[House Report 106-888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-888

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

 
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
  COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

 September 25, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 592]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 592, 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 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to a special rule reported on the legislative day of September 
26, 2000, providing for consideration or disposition of a 
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4578) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, or any 
amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon. 
Finally, House Resolution 586 is laid on the table.

                                  

```
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxygen, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:      August 7, 2006
    /s/  Lawrence W. BriscoeLawrence W. BriscoeChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                    CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2006-J4
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-J4


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                    Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
Exhibit 34.4

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Exhibit 33.4) that HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by auto loan receivables, as described in Schedule I of Exhibit 33.4 (the Applicable Servicing Criteria ), as of and for the period from June 8, 2006 (date of issuance of the initial asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report) through December 31, 2006.  Exhibit 33.4 identifies the individual asset-backed securitization transactions (the CoveredTransactions) defined by management as part of their assessment. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the 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 Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Covered Transactions, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Covered Transactions, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the period June 8, 2006 through December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 5, 2007
§ 1634.6 Notice of intent to compete. ( a ) In order to participate in the competitive bidding process, an applicant must submit a notice of intent to compete on or before the date designated by the Corporation in the RFP. The Corporation may extend the date if necessary to take account of special circumstances or to permit the Corporation to solicit additional notices of intent to compete.
( b ) At the time of the filing of the notice of intent to compete, each applicant must provide the Corporation with the following information as well as any additional information that the Corporation determines is appropriate: ( 1 ) Names and resumes of principals and key staff;
( 2 ) Names and resumes of current and proposed governing board or policy body members and their appointing organizations;
( 3 ) Initial description of area proposed to be served by the applicant and the services to be provided.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2075
CALVIN EARL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-68-4-H) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Samuel Cohen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. IRS , No. CA-97-68-4-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for "Service of Civil Contempt" and 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
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Annual Report of GTJ REIT, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Periodic Report"), I, David J. Oplanich, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





1. the
Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








Date:
      March 30, 2010
            /s/ David J. OplanichDavid
      J. Oplanich
              Chief Financial Officer
§ 1177.2 Definitions and construction. ( a ) For the purposes of the standards in this part, the terms “claim” and “debt” are synonymous and interchangeable. They refer to an amount of money, funds, or property that an agency official has determined to be due the United States from any person, organization, or entity, except another Federal agency. For the purposes of administrative offset under 31 U.S.C. 3716, the terms “claim” and “debt” include an amount of money, funds, or property owed by a person to a State (including past-due support being enforced by a State), the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
( b ) “Chairperson” means the Chairperson of NEH or the Chairperson's designee.
( c ) A debt is “delinquent” if it has not been paid by the date specified in the initial written demand for payment or applicable agreement or instrument (including a post-delinquency payment agreement), unless other satisfactory payment arrangements have been made.
( d ) Words in the plural form shall include the singular and vice versa, and words signifying the masculine gender shall include the feminine and vice versa. The terms “includes” and “including” do not exclude matters not listed but do include matters that are in the same general class.
( e ) “Recoupment” is a special method for adjusting debts arising under the same transaction or occurrence. For example, obligations arising under the same contract generally are subject to recoupment.
( f ) Unless otherwise stated, “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate.