alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(LOGO)
FARMERS
STATE BANK & TRUST




Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562

Attention: Master Servicing

RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1997 fiscal year:

A.   I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Servicer during the
     preceding fiscal year under the terms of the Servicing Agreement, Trust
     Agreement, Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Seller/Servicer Guide and
     to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
     its duties, responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements
     throughout such year, or if there has been a default or failure of the
     servicer to perform any of such duties, responsibilities or obligations, a
     description of each default or failure and the nature and status thereof
     has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N. A.;

B.   I have confirmed that the Servicer is currently an approved FNMA and
     FHLMC servicer in good standing;

C.   I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions Insurance
     Policy  and any other  bonds  required  under  the  terms of the  Servicing
     Agreement,   Trust  Agreement,   Polling  and  Servicing  Agreement  and/or
     Seller/Servicer Guide are in full force and effect;

D.    All premiums for each Hazard Insurance Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
      applicable) and Primary Mortgage  Insurance  Policy (if applicable),  with
      respect  to each  Mortgaged  Propert)',  have  been paid and that all such
      insurance policies are in full force and effect;

E.    All real estate taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
      accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or encumbrance on
      any Mortgage  Property,  have been paid, or if any, such costs or expenses
      have not been paid with respect to any Mortgage  Property,  the reason for
      the non-payment has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

F.    All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

G.   All annual  reports of Foredosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgaged  Property
     required per section 6050H,  6050J and 6050P of[he  Internal  Revenue Code,
     respectively, have been prepared and filed.


Certified By:

/s/Edward J. Meekins
Edward J. Meekins
Vice President

March 30, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT DEREE J. NORMAN, Petitioner

v. SAMUEL A. DION, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 183 EAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 15th day of July, 2015, the Motion for Leave to File a Response to the Answer and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED
.
#### O’MARY v. STATE.

No. 24496.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1949.

No attorney for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction was for unlawfully possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in the City of Wichita' Falls, Texas, without having a permit authorizing the sale of said liquor in said territory. Punishment assessed was a fine of one hundred dollars.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception, in which condition nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
---

Exhibit 15.2

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 
    CFO Certification In connection with the annual report of Getty Copper Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald Willoughby, 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; 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/ Donald Willoughby Name: Donald Willoughby 
    Title: Chief Financial Officer 
    April 27, 2012 A signed original of this written statement 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. This certification accompanies the Form 20-F to which it relates, is not to be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 20-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FRONTIER TELEPHONE OF ROCHESTER'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0000936105
<NAME>        FRONTIER TELEPHONE OF ROCHESTER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          28,491
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,516
<INVENTORY>                                        791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,358
<PP&E>                                         941,104
<DEPRECIATION>                                 604,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 454,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,361
<BONDS>                                         40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       232,165
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,469
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   454,191
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,291
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (12)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,837
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,041
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,796
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Michael Lamar Mellen, * From the 104th District

 Court of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 17952B.

Vs. No. 11-11-00257-CR * September 26, 2013

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 11.1

                                Progenitor, Inc.
                       Computation of Net Loss per Share




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED                  NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                   JUNE 30,                            JUNE 30,
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                                          1997                1996               1997               1996
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 <S>                                                   <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>
 Net loss                                              ($1,650,568)       ($1,239,259)       ($4,454,716)       ($2,780,298)
 Weighted average number of shares outstanding:
 Weighted average shares outstanding, beginning
 of period                                               2,887,217          2,852,779          2,885,904          2,789,271
 Add: Common and common share equivalents issued
 at prices below the anticipated Offering price
 during the 12 months immediately preceding the
 filing date of the Offering                                32,765             32,765             32,765             32,765
 Add: Weighted average common shares issued
 during period                                                   0                  0                657             34,926
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 used in computing net loss per share                    2,919,982          2,885,544          2,919,326          2,856,962
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 Net loss per share:                                         (0.57)             (0.43)             (1.53)             (0.97)
                                                       ==================================================================== 
</TABLE>




                                       39
#### CARLOS M. RIVERA *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15938.

*Richard T. Biggar,*assistant attorney general, in support of the petition.

*Brett Dignam,*in opposition.

*Leonard W. Engel*submitted an amicus curiae memorandum on behalf of the Connecticut Correctional Ombudsman, Inc., in support of the petition.

Decided May 15, 1998

The respondent’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 752 (AC 17274), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the respondent’s certification to appeal to the Appellate Court?

“2. Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that jail credit good time and statutory good time earned on a sentence must be shifted from an earlier sentence and credited to subsequently imposed concurrent sentences?”
Exhibit 32.1 SECTION 1350 Certification (Chief Executive Officer) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coastal Financial Corporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I Michael C. Gerald, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.
 This Certification is provided as of February 9, 2007.  /s/ Michael C. GeraldMichael C. GeraldPresident/Chief Executive Officer
   30
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 12 WEEKS ENDED APRIL 27,
1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-27-1997
<CASH>                                          57,878
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (4,225)
<INVENTORY>                                    498,763
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               791,553
<PP&E>                                       1,376,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                (324,624)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,233,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          958,641
<BONDS>                                      2,386,457
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    192,831
<COMMON>                                           172
<OTHER-SE>                                    (581,238)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,233,634
<SALES>                                      1,276,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,276,222
<CGS>                                        1,013,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,013,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               217,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20,984)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20,984)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 47,983
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (68,967)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.86)
        

</TABLE>
#### DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION v. FLOYD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 23, 1953.

*496J. D. Buckman, Jr,, Atty. Gen., and ■Squire N. Williams, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

W. Earl Dean, Harrodsburg, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This action originated before the State Board of Claims. KRS 44.070 et seq. The Board, by majority vote, dismissed the claim on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. On appeal to the Franklin Circuit Court the Board’s order was set aside and judgment entered for plaintiff in the 'amount of $1100. The Department of Conservation appeals.

In July, 1950, plaintiff, then a young lady of 19, was a member of a group visiting Pioneer Memorial State Park at Harrods-burg. Visitors at the park are charged an admission fee at the gate and ordinarily are furnished with a guide. On this occasion no guide was furnished. The party visited several of the buildings and finally came to a “blockhouse” representing a colonial community center. The door to the building was open. The building consisted of one large center hall, with a door on each side of the hall opening into a smaller room. The building was poorly lighted but the door leading into the small room on the right of the hall was also open. It was comparatively dark in the small room but some of the party observed a large moose' head, extending from the chimney over the fireplace. The party entered the small room and plaintiff struck her foot • against a piece of wire netting lying on the floor. The wire had a rough, jagged edge -and plaintiff received-a painful cut on her foot. The wound was approximately one-inch long and two stitches were required to close it. The wound bled profusely, and plaintiff fainted before medical attention was obtained. She was unable to walk on the injured foot for one month, and testified at the hearing in November, 1950, that her foot still caused her pain when she was required to stand for any appreciable length of time. She lost one month’s employment at the bank where she is employed at a salary of $135 per month, and her medical bills amounted to $36.

We find no contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. She was an invitee at the park and the defendant owed her the duty to exercise ordinary care to have the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give her adequate warning *497of any artificial or natural condition unknown to her which might cause her injury. Peerless Mfg. Corp. v. Davenport, 281 Ky. 654, 136 S.W.2d 779; Leonard v. Enterprise Realty Co., 187 Ky. 578, 219 S.W. 1066, 10 A.L.R. 238.

Although it was dark in the room where plaintiff was injured, -and there is testimony this particular building was used 'as a stores room and was not intended to be open to the public, plaintiff had the right to assume, since the door was open, that the premises were free from latent defects or hazards.

It is also argued that the damages are excessive. The award is liberal but we are not prepared to say it is excessive. Cf. Bruner v. Gordon, 309 Ky. 29, 214 S.W. 2d 997.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### PEGRAM v. EATON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 15, 1951.

Hughett & Hughett, Louisville, for appellant.

Hardy & Logan, Louisville, for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the appellee, plaintiff below, for $800 which the jury found had been loaned the appellant in part by the appellee and in part by her husband before his death. The jury also returned a verdict for $500 additional which the appellant admitted he owed the appellee.

The grounds alleged for a new trial are: (1) The verdict is not sustained by the evidence; (2)- the verdict is contrary to the evidence; (3) the court erred in admitting evidence for the appellee; and (4) newly discovered evidence.

The appellant was the son-by-law of the appellee at the time of the transactions listed in the petition, but the relationship has been severed by his divorce from her daughter. The appellant’s former wife testified in this litigation in behalf of her mother, the appellee, and plaintiff below.

We have read the testimony and briefs of the parties and conclude that this case was one for a jury to decide on the basis of credibility of the witnesses. Neither appellant nor appellee tendered instructions to aid the court in submitting the case to the jury. However, the instructions given by the court substantially and fairly presented to the jury the issues involved. The newly discovered evidence alleged in the affidavit in support of the motion for a new trial on that ground was not of such nature that it would have changed the minds of the jury had it been presented to them.

The judgment is affirmed.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_______________ ___ __ NO. 09
- 12
- 00 121
- CV

_______________ ___ __ CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON AND CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES , Appellant s
V.
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY , Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12
- 03
- 02362 CV

________________________________________________________________________ ORDER The record for this appeal has been filed under seal. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a. The parties’ briefs include portions of the sealed record and previously ordered protective measures will be defea ted if the briefs are published

. Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of the Court to seal the briefs that have been filed in this appeal, subject to a
motion to unseal the briefs. Additional briefs filed by the parties in this appeal may be
filed under seal.
ORDER ENTERED October 10 , 2012

. PER CURIAM
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
---

Exhibit 32.1



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



I, Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of Getty Copper Inc. (the Company), hereby 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:



(i)

The Amended Annual Report on Form 20-F/A-1 of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Amended Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|       |                        
|------ | -----------------------
|By:    | Dr. Corby Anderson   
|Name:  | Dr. Corby Anderson     
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:  | December 22, 2008      





This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement 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.



This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.







---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28032]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,129]


Eramet Marietta, Inc., Marietta, OH; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on September 25, 2000, in response to a petition filed by 
a company official on behalf of workers at Eramet Marietta, 
Incorporated, Marietta, Ohio.
    The petition group of workers is subject to an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TA-W-
38,113). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve 
no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day of October, 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-28032 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M