alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 130

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Revo Ventures Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended July 31, 2007 filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), eachof the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.    The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

 

| October 26, 2007 | By: /s/ "Jianbin Chen"                                                    |
|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|             | Jianbin Chen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Chief      Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TONY DEWAYNE BEARD, JR., a legally

incapacitated person, by and through

JOHNETTE FORD, his legal guardian,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 14-13465

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [187]

In a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued on May 22, 2017 (Dkt. 187),

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford recommends that this Court order attorney Johnny

Hawkins to pay Defendants $18,455.48 in sanctions, consistent with this Court's November

2016 order granting in part Defendants' motion for sanctions. (Dkt. 155.) Neither party has

filed objections to the R&R, and the deadline for doing so has passed. The parties' failure

to file objections to the R&R waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, the failure to

object to the R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Nonetheless, having reviewed the R&R, the

parties' submissions, and the record as a whole, the Court concurs with the Magistrate

Judge's analysis and therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R.

Accordingly, this Court orders Johnny Hawkins to pay Defendants $18,455.48 in

sanctions.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: June 14, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on June 14, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Bethel 

Case Manager

2
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999.

#### § 302.39 Standards for program operation.

The State plan shall provide that the IV-D agency will comply with the standards for program operation and the organizational and staffing requirements prescribed by part 303 of this chapter.

[41 FR 55348, Dec. 20, 1976]
EX-34 (i)
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those 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
servicing criteria specified above 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 Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, 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 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
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007



KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member firm of KPMG
International, a Swiss cooperative.
Exhibit 99.7





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO





18 U.S.C. §1350,





AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Westport Innovations Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Larkin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)           The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







June 1, 2010
/s/ William LarkinWilliam LarkinChief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies this annual report on Form 40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
§ 86.56 Fringe benefits. ( a ) *Fringe benefits* defined. For purposes of this part, *fringe benefits* means: Any medical, hospital, accident, life insurance or retirement benefit, service, policy or plan, any profit-sharing or bonus plan, leave, and any other benefit or service of employment not subject to the provision of § 86.54.
( b ) *Prohibitions.* A recipient shall not: ( 1 ) Discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to making fringe benefits available to employees or make fringe benefits available to spouses, families, or dependents of employees differently upon the basis of the employee's sex;
( 2 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a fringe benefit plan which does not provide either for equal periodic benefits for members of each sex, or for equal contributions to the plan by such recipient for members of each sex; or
( 3 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a pension or retirement plan which establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or which otherwise discriminates in benefits on the basis of sex.
(Secs. 901, 902, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON,

Plaintiff, Case No: 14-12758

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

vs

KILARU et al,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Appeal [54]. The

Constitution of the United States does not require the automatic appointment of counsel

in civil cases. “The appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitution

right and is justified only in exceptional circumstances.” Lanier v. Bryant, 332F.3d999,

1006 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Lavado v Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993)). 

The decision to appoint counsel to civil litigants is a matter left to the discretion of the

court. Lavado, 992 F.2d at 604-05. 

This Court finds that this case does not meet the exceptional circumstances

threshold and declines to appoint counsel. The motion is DENIED.

ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: October 6, 2015

2:14-cv-12758-VAR-DRG Doc # 57 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 234
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Morris Weatherspoon by

electronic means or U.S. Mail on October 6,

2015.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:14-cv-12758-VAR-DRG Doc # 57 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 235
- 2239
- 2240
- 2241
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 29 Filed 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 29 Filed 02/12/2009 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 29 Filed 02/12/2009 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 29 Filed 02/12/2009 Page 4 of 4
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

KISOR, ATTANASIO, and HARRELL

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Calvin F. KNAIDE VI

Private (E-1), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202400224

_________________________

Decided: 11 September 2024

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: 

Aran T. Walsh

Sentence adjudged 14 March 2024 by a general court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement for 33 months and a dishonorable discharge. 

For Appellant: 

Captain Katharine K. McCormick, JAGC, USN
United States v. Knaide, NMCCA No. 202400224

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, and Appellant having not challenged the factual sufficiency of this case, 

we have determined that the findings are correct in law, the sentence is correct 

in law and fact, and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
#### Lewis L. Younie, appellant, v. Fred Specht et al., appellees.

Filed April 1, 1916.

No. 18850.

Appeal: Record: Unauthorized Exhibits. A judgment will not be reversed upon a stipulation of'attorneys as to the evidence, not approved by tbe district judge and embodied in a bill of exceptions.

Appeal from the district court for Morrill county: Ralph W. Hobart, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*O. J. Hunt,*for appellant.

*Williams & Williams, .contra.*

Letton, J.

Action to restrain the execution and delivery of a sheriff’s deed in proceedings taken under a judgment alleged by plaintiff to be void. The petition alleges that the judgment is wholly void on account of jurisdictional defects in the constructive service, and that the deed, if executed, will cast a cloud upon the title of plaintiff. The coart found that the allegations of the petition were not supported by the evidence and for the defendant generally.. Plaintiff appeals.

A transcript of the judgment was filed in this court in due time. Attached to it are filed two papers, one purporting to be a copy of an affidavit for service by publication, the other a copy of an order for service by publication in-the action on which the judgment was based. A stipulation is also attached, which states that the. papers of which these are copies “were the only extraneous evidence of any kind offered or considered by the court,” and “that attached to this stipulation are full, true and correct copies of said affidavit for service by publication and the order for service by publication hereinabove described, and by agreement they are to be considered by the supreme court in reviewing the ruling of the district court upon the pleadings in the case first entitled herein.”

*622Such, a stipulation cannot he considered unless brought up by a bill of exceptions. *State Ins. Co. v. Buckstaff,*47 Neb. 1. It is there said: “A stipulation of the attorneys in a cause is no more part of the record than a deposition or any other evidence which may have been improperly included in the transcript. Matters which are not properly part of the record cannot be made so by being improperly inserted in the transcript. A stipulation of facts or mode of proof cannot take the place of a bill of exceptions. *Credit Foncier of America v. Rogers, 8*Neb. 34; *State v. Knapp,*8 Neb. 436; *Herbison v. Taylor,*29 Neb. 217; *McCarn v. Cooley,*30 Neb. 552. This stipulation could have been brought into the record by a bill of exceptions; but, that not having been done, it is not properly before the court, and -hence it cannot be considered.” *Keeler v. Manwarren,*61 Neb. 663.

We must follow the settled policy of the court. It would be manifestly unfair to the district courts to review their proceedings upon evidence which has never been brought into the record, nor examined and certified as a part of it by the district judge.

The pleadings are sufficient to sustain the judgment, and it is therefore

Affirmed.

Fawcett and Sedgwick, JJ., not sitting.
**21**
**st**

**      Century Holding Company**

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

|  | (1) | The                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                  15(d) of                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                  and |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | The                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  21st                  Century Holding Company. |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:                */s/ Peter J. Prygelski, III*                    |                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| **Peter                J. Prygelski, III, Chief Financial Officer** | August                11, 2008 |

----
§ 630.510 What actions will the Federal Government take against a recipient determined to have violated this part? If a recipient is determined to have violated this part, as described in § 630.500 or § 630.505, the National Science Foundation may take one or more of the following actions— ( a ) Suspension of payments under the award;
( b ) Suspension or termination of the award; and
( c ) Suspension or debarment of the recipient under 45 CFR part 620, for a period not to exceed five years.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

ROSE COULTER-OWENS, 

individually, and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODALE, INC., a Pennsylvania

corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-cv-12688-VAR-RSW

Judge: Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

APPEARANCE OF ALICIA E. HWANG ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

TO: Clerk of the Court and Counsel of Record:

Attorney Alicia E. Hwang of Edelson PC hereby files her Appearance as 

attorney for Plaintiff Rose Coulter-Owens and the putative class in the abovecaptioned matter.

Dated: October 21, 2014 By: /s/ Alicia E. Hwang

 One of Plaintiff’s attorneys

Ari J. Scharg

ascharg@edelson.com

John C. Ochoa

jochoa@edelson.com

J. Dominick Larry

nlarry@edelson.com

Alicia E. Hwang

ahwang@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

2:14-cv-12688-VAR-RSW Doc # 22 Filed 10/21/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 190
2

Fax: 312.589.6378

Henry M. Scharg – P28804 

hmsattyatlaw@aol.com

LAW OFFICE OF HENRY M. SCHARG

302 W. Main Street

Northville, Michigan 48167

Tel: 248.596.1111

Fax: 248 496.1578

Counsel for Plaintiff Rose Coulter-Owens and the putative class

2:14-cv-12688-VAR-RSW Doc # 22 Filed 10/21/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 191
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Alicia E. Hwang, an attorney, certify that on October 21, 2014, I served 

the above and foregoing Appearance of Alicia E. Hwang, by causing true and 

accurate copies of such paper to be filed and transmitted to all counsel of record 

via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system, on this October 21, 2014.

/s/ Alicia E. Hwang

2:14-cv-12688-VAR-RSW Doc # 22 Filed 10/21/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 192
EX-31.1

AMENDED CERTIFICATION

I, Harry Masuda, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Human
BioSystems;

2.      Based on my knowledge, this amended quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this amended quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

4.      The registrant's other certifying officers 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)] for the registrant and we have:

a.      designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b.      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c.      disclosed in this amended quarterly report any change in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's forth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

5.      The registrant's other certifying officers 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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a.      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2005


/s/ Harry Masuda
------------------
Harry Masuda
Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### § 113.40-1 Applicability.

This subpart applies to self-propelled vessels.
§ 800.304 Term of the contract. ( a ) *Term of a contract.* The term of the contract will be specified in the MSP Program contract and must be for a period of at least the 12 consecutive months defined as the plan year.
( b ) *Plan year.* The plan year is a consecutive 12-month period during which an MSP option provides coverage for health benefits. A plan year may be a calendar year or otherwise.