alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31

                            Section 302 Certification

I, Douglas K. Johnson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
     8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period
     included in the year covered by this annual report, of Allstate Life Global
     Funding Trust 2005-1;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
     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 as of
     the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
     to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and
     servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included
     in these reports;

4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor
     and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and
     based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under
     that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and
     trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
     compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or
     similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public
     accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
     Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set
     forth in the 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 the following unaffiliated parties: Allstate Life Insurance
Company and J.P. Morgan Trust Company National Association and their respective
officers and agents.

Date:    March 28, 2006

By:      /s/ Douglas K. Johnson
         -----------------------------------
         Name:  Douglas K. Johnson
         Title:  President
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 200 (Monday, October 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 61168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26667]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on 
Tuesday, October 17, 2000, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's 
Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to sections 
552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of 
Title 5, Unites States Code, to consider matters relating to the 
Corporation's corporate and supervisory activities.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-6757.

    Dated: October 12, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26667 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
#### FRY v. STATE.

No. 22466.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1943.

Polk Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of negligent homicide, and his punishment assessed by the jury at a fine of $3,000.

*232The complaint and information appear regular. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1000
       
<S>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             24396
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      34872
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                        29259
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   92276
<PP&E>                                             84229
<DEPRECIATION>                                     40224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    155274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              43696
<BONDS>                                             6587
<COMMON>                                            1366
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                         97251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      155274
<SALES>                                           189933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  189933
<CGS>                                             124955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     124955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    23468
<INCOME-TAX>                                        8496
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                14972
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       14972
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.86
        

</TABLE>
#### DUCKETT v. STATE.

No. 25264.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 4, 1951.

J. M. Parker, Gorman, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense defined in Art. 514, P.C., in keeping and being concerned in keeping an assignation house, and the jury assessed a fine of $200 and a jail term of 20 days.

The evidence from the standpoint of the state showed that appellant owned the house and resided there; that the reputation of the house was that of being a house where men and women met by mutual appointment for the purpose of sexual intercourse ; that several men and boys engaged in acts of sexual intercourse with appellant at such house on several occasions; that a single man stayed at said house and paid appellant $5 per day for his room and meals, but was required to absent himself when another man who was falsely represented by appellant to be her husband came there.

Such facts are sufficient to sustain the conviction. See Crowell v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 180 S.W.2d 343.

Complaint is made regarding the verdict, it being contended that the verdict was signed and delivered to the trial judge finding the defendant guilty but omitting to fix the punishment; that thereafter, the trial court having declined to receive such verdict, the jury added to their verdict below the signatures of the jurors, the punishment of “a fine of $200 and 20 days in jail.”

It is unnecessary for us to pass upon this complaint for the reason that un*543der the court’s charge and Art. 514, P.C., the punishment is definitely fixed in the event of conviction at a fine of $200 and a jail term of 20 days. It was therefore not an issue for the jury, and the jury had no discretion in regard thereto after finding appellant guilty as charged. See Art. 693, C.C.P.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




**Pursuant
      to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
      States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), Darryl S. Nakamoto, Chief Financial
      Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of Hoku Scientific, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the “**  ***Company***  **”)
      hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, as
      follows:**




The
      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2008,
      to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “ ***Periodic
      Report*** ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Periodic
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.




**I** **N** **W** **ITNESS** **W** **HEREOF** , the
      undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 6th day of June,
      2008.


By:
              /s/
                  DARRYL S. NAKAMOTODarryl
                  S. NakamotoChief
                  Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary*(Principal
                  Financial and Accounting
                  Officer)*




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
      18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), has been provided to
      Hoku Scientific, Inc. and will be retained by Hoku Scientific, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
      This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
      by reference into any filing of Hoku Scientific, Inc. under the Securities
      Act
      of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
      made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
      incorporation language contained in such filing.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41152

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GREGORY DARNELL AKINS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-35-2

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Gregory Darnell Akins has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Akins has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Akins’s claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41152

2

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Akins’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Akins’s motions for appointment of new counsel and for transcripts are

DENIED.
KALAB MILES HENDRIX,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5941

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 2, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Edward P. Nickinson, III, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J, WOLF and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,

ZTE (TX), INC.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00489-ADA

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY DISCOVERY HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for

DISCOVERY HEARING by Zoomoom on Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 02:30 PM.

set

IT 23rd day of September, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00489-ADA Document 118 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Randgold Resources Limited(the "Company") on Form 20-F/A for the yearended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Roger A. Williams, Finance Director of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

|  |           |                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (4)  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (5)  | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company. |

/s/ Roger A. Williams Roger A. WilliamsFinance Director October 19,2005

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000094136  
<NAME> Sterling Electronics Corporation             
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     us
       
<S>                             <C>           
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              mar-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 jun-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-27-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         714,542
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  60,434,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,629,984
<INVENTORY>                                    79,110,249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               140,259,847
<PP&E>                                         16,919,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,177,966
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,818,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          45,890,786
<BONDS>                                        51,788,478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,695,613
<OTHER-SE>                                     57,405,455
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,818,468
<SALES>                                        100,547,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,547,836
<CGS>                                          80,203,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  97,054,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               768,670
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             853,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,640,746
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,030,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,610,746
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,610,746
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .21
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 EnergySouth, Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
P. Huffman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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, 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.

Date: December 5, 2003                          /s/ Charles P. Huffman
                                                ----------------------
                                                Charles P. Huffman
                                                Senior Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

KEITH JACKSON, as P ersonal R epresentative of the estate of LINDA PROWE JACKSON, Appellant,

v.

THE ESTATE OF LINDA PROWE JACKSON , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 2568

[ June 1, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Charles E. Burton , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2021

- CP

001803

- XXXX

- SB

.

Brandan J. Pratt and Alexander J. Retamar of Huth, Pratt & Milhauser

, Boca Raton , for appellant

.

Thomas W. Walters of Thomas W. Walters, P.A

. , Boca Raton, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J., G ROSS and C IKLIN , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Hollywood Kitchen Cabinets, Inc., Assignor, to Lewis Soloway, Assignee.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

October 30, 1957.

*1005
      *Ostrow, Goldman S Shlaire*for petitioners.

*Leo H. Raines*for assignee.

James S. Bkown, J.

On November 12, 1956 petitioners via a written contract ordered cabinets to be made and delivered by the assignor and gave a $400 deposit for same. The assignor never delivered the cabinets. On February 15,1957, the assignor assigned for the benefit of creditors. On February 12, 1957 petitioners sued the assignor for breach of contract, demanding the return of the deposit, recovered a default judgment which was entered on March 29,1957 and filed their claim as judgment creditors with the assignee on May 17,1957.

Petitioners now request that the assignee be directed to pay to them the sum of $400 on the theory that said sum is a trust fund because it was obtained through fraud and willful misrepresentation at a time when the assignor was insolvent and knew it could not make and deliver the cabinets. Petitioners claim that this trust fund cannot be used for any other purpose except as intended and that the assignee does not have title to same.

The assignee claims that the transaction established the usual debtor-creditor relationship only and that petitioners are entitled only to their distributive share after the payment of administrative expenses and priority claims. This contention is supported by the case of *Addington*v. *Forsyth Metal Goods Co.*(234 N. Y. 93) wherein the court stated on page 97: “We know of no principle or authority under which moneys paid in advance on a contract to be performed by the payee become a trust fund in the latter’s hands where as in the present case they are not kept as a separate fund but are simply credited to the payer. The legal aspect of such a transaction is that the one pays to *1006the other a certain sum of money in consideration of which the latter agrees, as in this case, to make and deliver certain articles. The result of the transaction is that if the payee defaults on his agreement, the one paying has a cause of action in some form for breach of contract or to recover back the moneys which he had paid. But his right thus to recover is based upon the failure of the payee to do as he agreed to do in consideration of the payment to him of the moneys and is not based on any theory that the one paying retained the legal or equitable title to the moneys which were paid.”

Furthermore, the court cannot consider the claim of fraud in petitioners ’ affidavit since the complaint upon which the Municipal Court judgment was obtained stated a cause of action upon a contract and petitioners now have the status of judgment-creditors by virtue of that same judgment.

Accordingly, this motion is denied.