alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1**Report of Independent Accountants**To the Board of Directors of Triad Financial Corporation:**Re: Sale and Servicing Agreement related to Triad Automobile Receivables Trust 2005-B**We have examined management’s assertion about Triad Financial Corporation’s (“Triad”) compliancewith the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America’s*Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*(“USAP”), to the extent such procedures areapplicable as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005 included in the accompanying managementassertion (Exhibit I). Management is responsible for Triad’s compliance with those minimumservicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion aboutTriad’s compliance based on our examination.Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the AmericanInstitute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about Triad’s compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such otherprocedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examinationprovides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination of Triad’s compliance with the minimum servicing standards.In our opinion, management’s assertion that Triad has complied with the aforementioned minimumservicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005 is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
**Exhibit99.9**

 

 
|   | ** ** | **KPMG**LLP |                       |   |      |   |           |
|--------|------------|-------------|----------------------------|--------|-----------|--------|----------------|
|   |       | ** **  | **Chartered  Accountants** |   | Telephone |   | (403) 691-8000 |
|   |       |        | 2700-205 5 Avenue SW       |   | Telefax   |   | (403) 691-8008 |
|   |       |        | Calgary AB T2P 4B9         |   | Internet  |   | www.kpmg.ca    |
|        |            |             |                            |        |           |        |                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors ofPenn West Petroleum Ltd., the administrator of Penn West Energy Trust

 

We consent to the inclusionin this annual report on Form 40-F of:

 

·                  our auditors’ report dated March 26,2009 on the consolidated balance sheets of Penn West Energy Trust (the “Trust”)as at December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the consolidated statements of incomeand retained earnings and cash flows for the years then ended;

 

·                  our audit report dated March 26, 2009 onthe supplemental note to the consolidated financial statements entitled“Reconciliation of Canadian and United States Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples”;

 

·                  our Report of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm dated March 26, 2009 on the Trust’s internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2008.

 

each of which is containedin this annual report on Form 40-F of the Trust for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2008.

 

We also consent to theincorporation by reference of such reports in the Registration StatementsNo. 333-145296 on Form F-3 and No. 333-151324 on Form F-10of the Trust.

 

(Signed) KPMG LLP

 

Chartered Accountants

 

Calgary, Canada

March 27, 2009

 

KPMGLLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMGnetwork of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swisscooperative.KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.

 

----
September 8, 1952

No. 56861.

Suit 4699.

#### United States *v.*James H. Rhodes & Co.

Abstract 55525 affirmed May 28, 1952. C. A. D. 488.
No. 52812.

#### Max Seidman *v.*United States,

protest 140412-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of

platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 168 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 168

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 1999

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
       Waiving the requirement in section 132 of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 that the Congress adjourn sine die not later 
                          than July 31, 1999.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 132(a) of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 198(a)), the House of 
Representatives and the Senate shall not adjourn for a period in excess 
of three

days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress have adopted a 
concurrent resolution providing either for an adjournment (in excess of 
three days) to a day certain or for adjournment sine die.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Please read instructions before completing form. Form Approved. OMB Control No. 2070-0029. Approval Expires 02-28-2015

 United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 20460

Request for Pesticide Applicator Certification in Indian Country

LAST NAME (+ Jr, Sr, II, III etc.) FIRST NAME MI

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

–

AREA CODE TELEPHONE COUNTY OFFICE USE

( ) –

EMAIL ADDRESS (optional)

2. BIRTH DATE:

M M

– 

D D

– 

Y Y

 3. FEDERAL APPLICATOR ID # (if renewal):

4. CERTIFICATION TYPE:

5. APPLICATOR TYPE:

6. CERTIFICATION METHOD:

 a. 

 State (if applicable): Applicator Number: 

Expiration Date:

M M - D D - Y Y

Applicator Category/Categories for which Certificate/License was Received (enter category code(s)): 

 b. 

By signing this application below and submitting to U.S. EPA, I hereby attest to the fact that:

 1. I have personally completed the required training.

 2. I understand and can apply the information therein.

 3. I understand the significance of labeling and understand my legal responsibilities for the use of pesticides in accordance with label instructions and warnings;

 4. and; I intend to purchase and use Restricted Use pesticides only for production of an agricultural commodity on property owned or rented by myself or my

employer or to other property if the application is made without compensation other than trading of personal services between producers of agricultural

commodities.

7. PLEASE SIGN HERE

I attest my certification has not been suspended or revoked in the last 4 years by any state, tribe, or territory. If it has been, please 

check this box and attach an explanation.

SIGNATURE: DATE SIGNED: 

(FOR OFFICE USE:)

REC: APP: INIT: SENT:

EPA Form 7100-01

Requesting federal certificate based on valid federal, state or tribal certificate or license. (Attach a copy of certificate.)

 Completion of training (ONLY for private applicators who do not have a valid federal, state or tribal certificate or license) 

 Commercial Applicator Private Applicator

 Initial Certificate Renewal/Recertification Replacement (Lost Card)

A false statement in this certification may be grounds for denial of certification and may be punishable by fine or imprisonment 

(U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001). I certify that all the statements that I have made on this form are true, complete and correct 

 to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith.
No. 56827.

#### J. Raphael & Son *v.*United States,

protest 181810-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Prom an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
Before the Third Division,

January 3, 1952

No. 56224.

protest 172429-K (Los Angeles).

#### East West Import Co. *v.*United States,

*360Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At tbe trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of decorated chinaware, valued at more than $11.50 but not more than $18 per dozen, such as is itemized in T. D. 51898 as paragraph 212 (second) at “10jS per doz. and 45% ad val.” In view of this stipulation and accepting same ás a statement of fact, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7553

OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CASSANDRA GORTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-02190-RBH)

Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Olandio Ray Workman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Workman v. Gorton, 

No. 6:17-cv-02190-RBH (D.S.C. Nov. 1, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-99.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Pharmaceutical  Resources,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 30,  2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth
I.  Sawyer,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my 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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Kenneth I. Sawyer
--------------------------------
Kenneth I. Sawyer
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 05/31 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
Exhibit 99.7

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 Annual Report of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31,
2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Roberts, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 my 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 operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David E. Roberts                 
|    |  | David E. Roberts                     
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

March 12, 2015
Case No. 12,994.

#### In re SMITH

[1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 291.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1843.

Courts — Injunction—Bankruptcy.

The United States circuit and district courts can exercise the power of granting injunctions in cases in bankruptcy ex parte, and without notice to the adverse party or his attorney.

[Cited in Re Muiler, Case No. 9,912; Re Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co., Id. 11,451.]

[Cited in Hill Manuf’g Co. v. Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co., 113 Mass. 501.]

[In the matter of John Harper Smith, a bankrupt.]

This was an application to dissolve an injunction [granted in Case No. 12,993].

H. P. Barber, for bankrupt.

P. Clark, for creditors.

Cur. ad vulL

BETTS, District Judge.

On the 22d day of September, Jacob Tweedy moved the court to set aside the injunction issued in this case, and served on him on the 16th of August preceding. His motion was rested on the ground that an injunction was granted on the ex parte application of creditors, and without notice to him. The counsel contended that by the act of congress of March 2, 1793, an injunction cannot be granted in any case by the supreme or circuit court, or any judge of those courts, without previous reasonable notice to the adverse party or his attorney; and that the act of February 13, 1S07, in extending the power to the district judges, gave it also the same limitation. It would meet this branch of the argument with a sufficient answer to observe that the act of 1807 does not give the power to the district court, but constitutes the district judge an injunction master, as it were, in a certain class of cases, and in a qualified manner. When full equity powers are given to the court in bankruptcy by a sub sequent statute, the limitation or the exercise of these new powers is not necessarily to be understood as accompanying *412their bestowment But the more satisfactory view of the subject and that which has induced the court in repeated instances to grant injunctions in bankrupt cases instanter, and without notice, is that the restriction in the act of 1793 [1 Stat. 333] applies only to cases or suits pending in the supreme or circuit court. In these particular instances the injunction cannot issue without a previous notice to the adverse party, but the restriction does not apply where, as under the bankrupt act, a mere equity jurisdiction is created, and is conferred upon the district court in relation to matters pending in that court, and' within its cognizance exclusively. I find that Judge Story has examined this subject at a later day, and has affirmed the construction this court had given the act in this respect. His reasoning upon the topic cannot be fortified by any remarks I could offer, and I shall content myself with reasserting the power as it has been exercised in this court since the bankrupt act went into operation, and adopting his opinion as a satisfactory indication of the practice'. Carlton’s Case [Case No. 2,-415], Judge Judson, of the Connecticut district, pursues the like practice. Calender’s Case [Id. 2,30S]. Motion denied, with costs.
Exhibit 32.2

10-K Exhibit 32.2: Certifications 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 iShares Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael A. Latham, Chief Financial Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Trust.

Date: February 27, 2009



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Michael A. Latham                                                 
|Michael A. Latham * Chief Financial
Officer (Principal financial officer)





|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Latham is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Befóse the Second Division,

October 13, 1961

No. 66143.

#### Karl Schroff & Associates, Inc. (for the account of Norwood Imports) *v.*United States,

protests 60/17717-11413 and 61/2118-12084 (Chicago).

Lawrence, Judge:

In this cause of action, the plaintiff challenges the decision of the collector of customs at the port of Chicago in excluding from entry into the United States certain artificial geraniums exported from Hong Kong.

The jurisdiction of this court was invoked pursuant to the provisions of section 614 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1514), which, insofar as pertinent here, reads:

> * * * all decisions of the collector, * * * excluding any merchandise from entry or delivery, under any provision of the customs law, * * * shall, * * * be final and conclusive upon all persons * * *, unless the importer, consignee, or agent of the person * * * seeking such entry or delivery, shall, within sixty days after, but not before such * * * decision, or refusal, as the case may be, * * * file a protest in writing with the collector setting forth distinctly and specifically, and in respect to each entry, * * * decision, or refusal, the reasons for the objection thereto. * * *

The collector exercised his authority in accordance with the Copyright Act of July 30, 1947, chapter 391, 61 Stat. 663; title 17, U.S.C., section 106, which reads as follows, the pertinent part being stressed:

> *The importation into the United States*of any article bearing a false notice of copyright when there is no existing copyright thereon in the United States, or *of any piratical copies of any work copyrighted in the United States, is prohibited.*

Section 106, *supra,*is implemented by section 109 of said act which provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is empowered and required to make appropriate rules and regulations for its enforcement.

Section 11.20(a) of the Customs Regulations of the United States, codified in title 19, CFR, chapter 1, defines “piratical copies” as follows:

> (a) Actual copies or substantial reproductions of legally copyrighted works produced and imported in contravention of the rights of the copyright proprietor shall be considered “piratical copies” within the meaning of the Copyright Act.

At the trial, protest 60/17717 was consolidated for hearing with protest 61/2118 of the same plaintiff and involving the same primary issue.

Prior to the introduction of testimony, counsel for the Government conceded that the merchandise represented by “Exhibit 1 in Protest 60/17717, is not a piratical copy”; and, in its brief, appears the statement, “* * * we hereby consent to entry of a judgment sustaining that protest as to such flowers.”

In view of this concession, it is deemed prudent, in order to expedite final disposition of protest 60/17717, to sever it from protest 61/2118 and issue a separate decision and judgment thereon.

For the reasons above stated, protest 60/17717 is sustained, and judgment will issue in conformity with the views above expressed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned constitutes and
appoints Scott A. Schuff and Kenneth F. Zylstra, and each of them, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place, and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1998, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Schuff Steel Company a Delaware corporation, together with any and all
amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto,
and all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting to such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

          DATED: February 16, 1999



                                     /s/  David A. Schuff
                                     ____________________
                                     DAVID A. SCHUFF
<PAGE>   2
STATE OF ARIZONA    )
                    )
County of Maricopa  )


         On this 16th day of February, 1999, before me, the undersigned Notary
Public, personally appeared David A. Schuff, known to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed
the same for the purposes therein contained.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.



                                     /s/ Ginger I. Inman
                                     _____________________
                                     Notary Public


My commission expires:

November 3, 1999
________________________
No. 59861.

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 193671-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carbon powder similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(42 C. C. P. A. 207, C. A. D. 595), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
BefoRb Chief Judge Rao,

November 9, 1966

No. R66/58.

#### Kurt Orban Co., Inc. *v.*United States, reappraisements R59/9729, etc. (Jacksonville).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *Kurt Orban Com*pany, *Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 851), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis of value for the galvanized wire and round steel wire in issue and that said value is the appraised value, less inland freight and f.o.b. charges of $11 per metric ton.