alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
34.2


Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board
of Directors


U.S. Bank
National Association





We have
examined management’sassertion,
included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank
National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC’s Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset
Backed Securitiesplatform (the
Platform)as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2007, except forservicing criteria
1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)–(xiv), which
the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by
them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management
is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the
Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our
examination.





Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by 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 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 assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP





Minneapolis,
Minnesota


February
12, 2008


0802-0910920-1
---

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Johannes T. Petersen, certify that:

1.          
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Century Petroleum Corp.;

2.          
Based on my knowledge, this 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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.          
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and I have:

a)          
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 quarterly report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.

5.          
I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controls over
financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)           all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March 24, 2008

/s/ Johannes T. Petersen
  Johannes T. Petersen, Chief Financial Officer, 
  Secretary and Director 
  (Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer)

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAMON DUANE AMISON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 147 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAMON DUANE AMISON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 148 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of December, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 Sept. 8, 2021The summer before 9/11
        The year 2001 represented change for the nation. In January, President George W. Bush took office and began selecting his cabinet. However, the controversy over the Florida election returns, and “hanging chads,” delayed the appointment of defense officials even more than in previous years.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
fAA~lO\O- OG'to

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli CoW 10/17/08

Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer 10/17/08 -

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hac_kInan 10/17/08 -

ATA Craig Fabian 10117/08 -

09/29/06
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


1, David M. Sindelar, as Chief Executive Officer of International Wire Group,
Inc. (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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
         fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S.
         Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


Dated: March 31, 2003


/s/ David M. Sindelar
-------------------------------------
David M. Sindelar
Chief Executive Officer
AAM-13-267-E 

April 17, 2013 

 Exemption No. 10308A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0698 

Ms. Ann-Marie Skubitz 

Human Resource Manager 

Scott’s Helicopter Services, Inc. 

780 S. Elmwood Avenue, P.O. Box 92 

Le Sueur, MN 56058 

Dear Ms. Skubitz: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10308. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 25, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Scott’s Helicopter Services, Inc. (Scott’s) for an extension of Exemption 

No. 10308. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

allows Scott’s, which is operating under separate parts of 14 CFR, to cover its safety-sensitive 

employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Scott’s. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10308 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 
2 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Scott’s are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Scott’s part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10308 to July 31, 2015 unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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. |
|                                      |
|                                      | Dated                  this 14th                  day of December, 2007.                                                                                                                                                  |
|                                      |

| /s/                  Harold W Gardner                  Harold                  W GardnerChief                  Executive Officer  | /s/                  Jas Butalia                  Jas                  ButaliaChief                  Financial Officer |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### Served: March 11 , 201 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on the 11 th of March, 2014
Essential Air Service at FORT DODGE, IOWA MASON CITY, IOWA
Und er 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. DOCKET DOT
- OST
- 2001
- 10682 D DO CKET DOT
- OST
- 2001
- 10684

NOTICE EXTEN DING THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS AT FORT DODGE AND MASON CITY, IOWA By Order 201 4

- 1

- 20 , January 31 , 201 4 , the Department requested proposals for EAS at For t Dodge and Mason City, Iowa , with proposals due no later than February 21, 2014

. We received timely

- filed proposals from Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., and Multi

- Aero, Inc., d/b/a Air Choice One. On February 24, 2014, we requested comments on those proposa ls by March 14, 2014. On March 11, 2014, both communities requested a seven

- day extension to that deadline

. We will grant the requests for extension. Community comments are now due on March 21, 2014

.

Kevin D. Schlemmer, Chief EAS and Domestic Anal ysis An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov
EXHIBIT 32.2




AULTRA
GOLD 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 Aultra Gold Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended Juen 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rauno Perttu, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




A signed
original 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.




Date:
      August 19, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Rauno
      PerttuRauno
      PerttuChief
      Financial Officer
#### Brian REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-85-58.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 25, 1987.

William J. Musseman, Tulsa, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Mary F. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary Quinn, Legal Intern, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Brian Reynolds, was convicted of the crime of Lewd Molestation in the District Court of Tulsa County in Case No. CRF-83-1803 and was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment, and he appeals.

Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant, who worked as a teacher’s helper at a church in Tulsa, exposed his penis to a three-year-old girl who attended the classes and told her to touch his penis, which produced a “milk-like” substance.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to refile the information after sustaining his motion to quash. He alleges that the trial court sustained his motion on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and that the State failed to make a proper showing of additional evidence to justify the refiling. However, after reviewing the record in the present case, we find that the trial judge sustained appellant’s motion because the four-year-old witness was not formally sworn at the preliminary hearing. The Court minutes clearly support this finding:

> 4-19-83 Deft Pres in open court and rep by Bill Musseman, State rep by Joe Smith.. Case called for jury trial.. Deft motion to dismiss for lack of competent witness sustained, *(witness not sworn at prel)*case dismissed. Costs to State, bond exonerated.

The record is devoid of any statements or writings by the trial judge that the charge was dismissed for insufficient evidence. *565To the contrary, the sole reason for the dismissal was the failure to formally swear a witness at the preliminary hearing; therefore, the refiling was proper. See, 22 O.S.1981, § 817. This assignment is merit-less.

The appellant next alleges that the trial court was without jurisdiction over count one of the information pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, ch. 18, App., Rule 6.1, et seq. in that the State failed to file its appeal from the adverse ruling of the magistrate within five (5) days from the date of the adverse decision. Subsequent to the May 24, 1983, refiling of the charges, the appellant filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support thereof. On Tuesday, June 14, 1983, the motion was heard, and the magistrate sustained the motion as to count one of the information. On Monday, June 20, 1983, the State filed its application to appeal from the adverse ruling. Since the fifth day fell on Sunday, June 19, 1983, the period was enlarged until the following business day. *See*12 O.S.1981, § 73; *J.A.M. v. State,*598 P.2d 1207 (Okl.Cr.1979). This assignment of error is without merit.

For the above stated reasons, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., concurs m results.

PARKS, J., concurs.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00053-CR

DAMIAN SCOTT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 174th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1410122).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on 

December 2, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments 

properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no 

reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered December 1, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown. Opinion 

delivered by Justice Brown.
Exhibit 32.2

NTELOS HOLDINGS CORP.

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 NTELOS HOLDINGS CORP. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the
Report), I, Michael B. Moneymaker, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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 results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Michael B. MoneymakerMichael B. MoneymakerExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary


May 1, 2009
EXHIBIT
32.2





AULTRA
GOLD 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 Aultra Gold Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rauno Perttu, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed
original 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.





Date: November
      14, 2009
            By:
            /s/ 
      Rauno
      PerttuRauno
      PerttuChief
      Financial Officer