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



EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief
Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002


10-K




| |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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 the Company.

|                                                                     |  |                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mitchell C. HillMitchell
    C. Hill
    Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/ Dennis K. KnappDennis
    K. Knapp
    Chief Financial Officer



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 the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
      99.1













**Report
      of Independent Accountants**






To
      the
      Board of Directors and


Shareholder
      of Equity One, Inc.:







We
      have
      examined management’s assertion about Equity One, Inc. and its subsidiaries’
(the “Company”) compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in
      the Mortgage Bankers Association of America’s Uniform Single Attestation Program
      for Mortgage Bankers (“USAP”) as of and for the year ended November 30, 2005
      included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I). Management
      is
      responsible for the Company’s compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
      Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the
      Company’s compliance based on our examination.




Our
      examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
      the
      American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
      examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the
      minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
      considered necessary in the circumstances. 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 minimum servicing
      standards.




In
      our
      opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the
      aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended November
      30, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material respects.




/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





February
      27, 2006





















**Management’s
      Assertion Concerning Compliance**


**with
      USAP Minimum Servicing Standards**






February
      22, 2006







As
      of and
      for the year ended November 30, 2005, Equity One, Inc. and its subsidiaries
      (the “Company”),
      a wholly-owned subsidiary of Popular Financial Holdings, Inc., have complied
      in all
      material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage
      Bankers Association
      of America’s *Uniform
      Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (“USAP”) solely
      for purpose of servicing the residential mortgage loans underlying the Loan
      Asset Backed Certificate
      Series 1997-1, 1998-1, 1999-1, 2000-1, 2001-1, 2001-2, 2001-3, 2002-1, 2002-2, 2002-3,
      2002-4, 2002-5, 2003-1, 2003-2, 2003-3, 2003-4, 2004-1, 2004-2, 2004-3, 2004-4,
      2004-- 5,
      2005-1, 2005-2, 2005-A, 2005-3, 2005-B, 2005-4, 2005-C, 2005-5, 2005-D (the “Agreement”)
      except as noted as
      follows:




As
      of and
      for this same period, the Company had in effect fidelity bond and errors and
      omissions policies
      in the amounts of $65,000,000 and $25,000,000, respectively.







/s/
      John N.
      Martella


John
      N.
      Martella


Group
      Executive Vice President of Loan Servicing
Tribal NSR Rule Tribal NSR Rule-Summary of Comments Presentation Summary of Comments Presentation

Jessica Montanez Jessica Montanez to: King, Heidi R. 11/10/2010 04:44 PM

Cc: Raj Rao

Heidi,

Per your conversation with Raj earlier today, I am attaching a summary of the comments we received on 

the main issues in the Tribal NSR Rule. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Jessica

 TribalNSRRulesCommentsSummary111010.ppt 

Jessica Montañez

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Quality Policy Division

New Source Review Group

109 TW Alexander Drive MD: C504-03 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-3407, Fax: 919-541-5509

Note: Positions or views expressed here do not represent official EPA policy . 

Looking for a speaker for your school or community event? http://www.epa.gov/rtpspeakers/
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 on Form 20-F of Pixelplus Co., Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), Seo Kyu Lee, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
knowledge:



|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 operation of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 26, 2006



|    |  |                               
|--- |  | ------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/    SEO KYU
LEE            
|    |  | Name: Seo Kyu Lee             
|    |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S PENDING MOTIONS

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LAWRENCE M. MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF UTTECHT,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C06-1092-RSL

ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S 

PENDING MOTIONS

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner's second motion for appointment of

counsel and on petitioner’s motion to compel and/or extend time. The Court, having reviewed

petitioner’s motions, and the balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(l) Petitioner's second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED.

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an

evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988);

Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); and Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court may exercise its discretion

to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the "interests of justice so require."

18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

Case 2:06-cv-01092-RSL Document 31 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S PENDING MOTIONS

PAGE -2

In a Report and Recommendation issued the same date as this Order, this Court concluded

that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s petition because the petition was successive. This

Court therefore recommended that the petition be transferred to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. As this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s petition, it would serve no

purpose to appoint counsel in this matter.

(2) Petitioner’s motion to compel and/or extend time (Dkt. No. 28) is GRANTED.

Petitioner, by way of the instant motion, appears to seek additional time to file a response to

respondent’s answer to his federal habeas petition. Petitioner’s traverse to the answer was

received by the Court on October 20, 2006, the date the petition was noted for consideration.

Petitioner’s traverse has been made a part of the record.

(3) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent,

and to the Hon. Robert S. Lasnik.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-01092-RSL Document 31 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 12

CONSENT OF EXPERT

March 29, 2007



Baja Mining Corp.



United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Ladies and Gentlemen:



Re: Baja Mining Corp.



I, John Wyche, do hereby consent to the filing of the written disclosure of the technical report entitled Bateman Engineering Preliminary Assessment of the El Boleo Copper-Cobalt Project, dated August 12, 2005, and the technical report entitled, An Updated Preliminary Assessment of El Boleo Copper-Cobalt Project dated January 31, 2007, (the Technical Reports), and any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Reports in the Form 40-F Annual Report dated March 30, 2007 (the Form 40-F Annual Report) of Baja Mining Corp. (the Company), and to the filing of the Technical Report and this consent with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Companys Form 40-F Annual Report.



I also consent to the use of my name in the Companys Form 40-F Annual Report.



| |     |                                                                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | (Signed) John Wyche                                                                  
| |     | Name: John Wyche, MAusIMM, MMICA, CPMin, Australian Mine Design and Development Corp.
| |     | Location: Sydney, Australia
November 25, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MANZOOR MEMON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00015

- CV V.

HAROON SHAIKH , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard the parties ’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on October 3, 2011 . Having considered the motion and found it meritorious , in part , we order that the court ’s former judgment of Apr il 30, 2013, be vacated, set aside, and annulled and order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
****Exhibit 23.3****

 

****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM****

 

To the Board of Directors

Argyle Security, Inc.

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-126569)and related Prospectus of Argyle Security, Inc., pertaining to theregistration of 4,075,046 shares of its common stock and 187,500 common stockpurchase warrants, of our report dated February 3, 2006, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Argyle Security, Inc., which appearsin this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

 

/s/ Goldstein GolubKessler LLP

 

****GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLERLLP****

New York, New York

 

March 31, 2008

 

 

----
Stimsonite Corporation
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings
                            For the Periods Indicated
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Quarter Ended                  Six Months Ended                   Year Ended
                                    ----------------------------   -----------------------------    ----------------------------

Description                            6/29/97         6/30/96        6/29/97          6/30/96         6/29/97          6/30/96
-----------                            -------         -------        -------          -------         -------          -------
<S>                                   <C>             <C>            <C>              <C>             <C>              <C>
Average Shares Outstanding            8,569,027       8,852,900      8,608,764        8,854,650       8,696,624        8,882,442

Net additional  shares  assuming  dilutive stock options  exercised and proceeds
  used to purchase treasury shares at fair market
  value                                 124,616         149,914        126,744          155,229         132,418          168,227

Options issued within one year prior to the initial filing date of  registration
  statement for an initial public offering in accordance with Staff Accounting
  Bulletin No. 83                             0          13,680              0           14,969           1,111           18,311
                                    ------------    ------------   ------------     ------------    -----------      -----------

Average number of common
  shares and common equivalent
  shares outstanding                  8,693,643       9,016,494      8,735,508        9,024,848       8,830,153        9,068,980
                                    ============    ============   ============     ============    ============     ============

Net Income (loss)                    $1,978,000      $2,064,000     $1,202,000       $1,072,000       ($718,000)      $3,469,000

Per share data:
Net Income (loss)                         $0.23           $0.23          $0.14            $0.12          ($0.08)           $0.38
</TABLE>

See Accompanying Notes
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MIGUEL MIER-NAVA,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5351RBL

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (/) For reasons set forth in the motion for detention and by defendant’s stipulation to detention without prejudice.

 (/) The Defendant has advised the Court that he is diabetic.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 June 6, 2006.

__s/ Karen L. Strombom_______________

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05351-RBL Document 23 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-60;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006   By: /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName: Ellen Z. LamaleTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 AUGUST 16, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-15656

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 09-00527-CV-2-MEF-SRW

KENNETH GENE WALL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ANITA DENISE WALL,

a.k.a. Anita Denise Griffith,

JOHN B. BUSH, in his individual

and official capacities,

SIBLEY G. REYNOLDS, in his

individual and official capacities,

CAROL "FAIN" BUSH,

PAUL HIEBEL,

in his individual and official capacities,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________

(August 16, 2010)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wall appeals pro se the denial of his motion to alter or amend the

judgment that dismissed his complaint that he was denied a fair divorce hearing

because of a conspiracy between his former wife, Anita Wall, Judges John Bush

and Sibley Reynolds, court reporter Carol Bush, and Family Court Referee Paul

Hiebel. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. Wall moved to alter or amend on the ground

that he had not received a copy of the report and recommendation of the magistrate

judge that the district court had adopted. The district court denied Wall’s motion,

and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wall’s motion to

alter or amend. The magistrate judge directed the clerk to serve Wall a copy of the

report and recommendation, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and that “service [was]

complete upon mailing,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). There is a presumption that an

item mailed has been received, Barnett v. Okeechobee Hosp., 283 F.3d 1232, 1239

(11th Cir. 2002), and Wall failed to submit sufficient evidence to rebut that

presumption. Although Wall alleged that he did not receive the report and

recommendation, he offered nothing more than his bare assertion to overcome the

presumption. See id. at 1241. The clerk mailed the report and recommendation to

2
the address provided by Wall, and the report was not returned as undeliverable by

postal officials. Wall also had received documents mailed previously to that same

address. Wall also failed to explain what objections, if any, he would have filed

had he received the report earlier, nor has Wall offered any explanation on appeal.

We AFFIRM the denial of Wall’s motion to alter or amend.

3
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-131259) pertaining to the Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. 1994 Stock Awards Plan, 2001 Stock Incentive Plan,and 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-174237) pertaining to the Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-170634)of our reports dated March 16, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. and Affiliates and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Caribou Coffee Company,Inc. and Affiliates, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended January 1, 2012. 

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

April 16, 2012