alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.1


Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) of United States Gasoline Fund, LP (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Nicholas D. Gerber, the Chief Executive Officer of United States
Commodity Funds LLC, General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the
best of 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
Registrant.







Date:
              November
      16, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Nicholas D. GerberName:
                Title:
              Nicholas
      D. Gerber
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  United
      States Commodity Funds LLC,
                  General
      Partner of United States Gasoline Fund,
    LP
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HOLIDAY PALACE, INC. d/b/a CHRISTMAS PLACE,

Appellant,

v.

J. PATRICK O’NEAL, as Successor Trustee of the GEORGE W. HOWELL 

FAMILY TRUST, u/a/d February 26, 2016,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1935

[March 31, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE17-23476.

Marc A. Silverman and David W. Black of Frank, Weinberg & Black, 

P.L., Plantation, for appellant.

John P. Seiler of Seiler, Sautter, Zaden, Rimes & Wahlbrink, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### COBB v. STATE.

No. 20351.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 5, 1939.

Wallace B. Moore, of Dallas, for appellant.

*982Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon appellant’s plea of guilty of the offense of misdemeanor theft, and the waiver of a trial by jury, the court assessed his penalty at thirty days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

The record contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception. The information appears to be in proper form, and all proceedings herein seem to be regular, and we have no other alternative than to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly done.
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

AB BA SSEH TOWFI GH, Ap pe lla nt,
v. ROBERT MURRAY, POWERMORTGAGE, MURRAY MORTGAGE, AN D CHI CAGO TI TL E, Appellee s. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 01 44 -C V

Appea l from 296th District Court of Collin C ounty , Texas (TC # 296-273-07)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This appea l is before the cour t on its own motion for deter mination of whether

it should be dismiss ed for

want of prosec ution. Finding that Appellant, Abbasseh Towfig h, has failed to file a n amende d notice of a

ppeal a nd has failed to respond to our inquiry letter, we dismiss the appe al for want of pr osecution. On Marc h 10, 2008, Appellant filed a notice of a

ppeal indicating that h e wished to appe al from “a ll Orders, e ntere d in this ac t i o n . ” The Fifth Court of Appe als, on Marc h 14, 2008, sent Appellant a letter informing him that his notice of a ppeal wa s defe ctive bec ause it did not include the date of

the judg ment or orde r appealed f rom and did not include a cer tificate of service
. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.1(d)( providing that notice of appea l must state the date of the judg ment or orde r-2-

appea led from) , 9.5(e) (setting forth ce rtificat e o f s e r v ic e r e q u irements). The letter a dvised Appellant that f a ilure to c omp ly

c ou ld r e su lt i n d ism iss a l of the a pp e a l w ith ou t f

ur the r n oti c e . App e lla

nt d id not amend the notice of appe al or other wise re spond to th e Fifth Court of Appea ls’ inquiry . On April 9, 2008, the F ifth Court of Appea ls informed Appellant that the appeal had be en tra nsfer red t o t h e E i g h t h C o u rt o f A p p e a l s p u r s u an t t o an o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u rt . B e c a us e Ap pe lla nt h a s n ot r e me die d th e de fe c ts i n th e no tice of a pp e a l, w e dis mis s th e a

pp e a l pu rs ua nt t o Rule 42.3(c)
. T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(c)( permitting involuntary dismiss al in civil case s where the appellant ha s failed to comply with a re quirement of the rules of a ppellate pr ocedur e).
J uly 3, 2008 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    /s/ Anthony J. NocellaAnthony J. NocellaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Limco-Piedmont Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Shabtai Moshiashvili, Chief Financial Officer of 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief 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.

/s/ Carla S. Covey*Chief Financial Officer


May 15, 2008

|* | The originally executed copy of this Certification will be retained by the Company and will be made available for inspection upon request.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3450 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3450

   To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit private educational 
lenders from requiring accelerated repayment of private education loans 
        upon the death or disability of a cosigner of the loan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2015

  Mr. Kildee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit private educational 
lenders from requiring accelerated repayment of private education loans 
        upon the death or disability of a cosigner of the loan.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Debt Repayment Fairness Act 
of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING FULL REPAYMENT OF PRIVATE EDUCATION 
              LOAN UPON DEATH OR DISABILITY OF COSIGNER.

    Section 140 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1650) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Prohibition on Accelerating Repayment Upon Death or 
Disability of a Cosigner on a Private Education Loan.--
            ``(1) In general.--If a cosigner who is jointly liable on a 
        private education loan is unable to fulfill any obligations 
        with respect to the loan by reason of death or disability, the 
        private educational lender may not accelerate the repayment 
        terms of any outstanding obligation if the borrower is in good 
        standing (as determined by the Bureau) with respect to the 
        loan.
            ``(2) Disability defined.--In this subsection, the term 
        `disability' means a permanent and total disability, as 
        determined in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary 
        of Education under section 437(a) of the Higher Education Act 
        of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087(a)), or a determination by the 
        Secretary of Veterans Affairs that the individual is 
        unemployable due to a service-connected condition.''.
                                 <all>
```
[LETTERHEAD OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS]

                                AUDITORS' REPORT

                             To the Shareholders of

                             Merkaz Herzlia "B" Ltd.

We have audited the balance sheets of Merkaz Herzlia "B" Ltd. (hereafter - the
company) as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the statements of income, changes
in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1998. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the company's board of directors and management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, including those prescribed by the Auditors (Mode of Performance)
Regulations, 1973. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement, either due to error or to intentional misrepresentation.
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts
and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing
the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the board of
directors and management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audit provides a fair basis for our opinion.

The aforementioned financial statements have been prepared on the basis of
historical cost adjusted to reflect the changes in the general purchasing power
of Israeli currency, in accordance with pronouncements of the Institute of
Certified Public Accountants in Israel. Condensed nominal Israeli currency data
on the basis of which the adjusted financial statements were prepared, are
presented in note 11.

In our opinion, the aforementioned financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of the company as of December 31, 1998
and 1997 and the results of its operations, changes in shareholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

Pursuant to section 211 of the Companies Ordinance (New Version), 1983, we
hereby state that we have received all the information and explanations which we
have requested and our opinion on the above mentioned financial statements is
given based on the best of our information and the explanations which we have
received and as reflected in the books of the company.

The nominal net income for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 1998 included in the above financial statements (see note 11), differ (see
attached schedule signed by us for identification) from the net income included
in the "condensed special financial statements" for each of those years on which
we expressed our opinion on February 28, 1999 and which were prepared according
to the instructions of PEC Israeli Economic Corporation.

Tel-Aviv, February 28, 1999

                                             /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman
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. 09-10629

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IVAN MUNOZ-FAVELA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-5-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ivan Munoz-Favela was convicted of illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

He appeals the sentence resulting from an upward departure pursuant to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 26, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-10629 Document: 00511064180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2010
No. 09-10629

2

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. He argues that the district court erred procedurally in failing

to consider each intermediate step as it moved up the various offense levels within category VI. Our review of Munoz’s procedural challenge is for plain error.

See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009); FED. R. CRIM. P.

51(b).

In United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc),

this court stated, “Ordinarily the district court’s reasons for rejecting intermediate categories will clearly be implicit, if not explicit, in the court’s explanation

for its departure from the category calculated under the guidelines and its explanation for the category it has chosen as appropriate.” That is the case here:

The court plainly set forth the reasons for its upward departure, thereby implicitly rejecting intermediate offense levels. See, e.g., United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 348 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, Munoz has not shown error,

plain or otherwise, as to the procedural soundness of his sentence. See Alford,

142 F.3d at 830-31.

Munoz contends further that the district court justified its upward departure on an impermissible basis in that, although none of his prior convictions

qualified as aggravated felonies, the court considered them as such because the

violent conduct underlying those convictions resembled felonies. This claim

amounts to speculation as to the motives for imposing an upward departure.

Moreover, the argument is contradicted by the record. The court plainly stated

that the prior offenses “did not rise to the level of aggravated felonies.” Because

the court did not classify Munoz’s prior violent offenses as “aggravated felonies”

or “crimes of violence,” the categorical approach had no application in the sentencing proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 371-72 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 371 (2009). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-10629 Document: 00511064180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2010
**Annual Statement as to Compliance****For the Period of July 17, 2012 to December 31, 2012*****UBS 2012-C12***In  accordance  with  the  requirements  detailed  in  10.11  of  the  Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement ("Agreement") for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, CWCapital Asset Management LLC ("CWCAM"), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer's Certificate with respect to the following: (A)a  review  of  CWCAM's  activities  during  the  period  noted  above  and  of  CWCAM's performance under this Agreement has been made under my supervision; and (B)to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  based  on  such  review,  CWCAM  has  fulfilled  all  its obligations  under  this  Agreement  in  all  material  respects  throughout  the  period noted above. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, CWCapital Asset Management LLC    /s/ David B. Iannarone David B. Iannarone President
#### G. C. WALKER et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. SALT FLAT WATER COMPANY, Defendant in Error.

Motion No. 12617; No. 6667.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1936.

For former opinion, see 96 S.W.(2d) 231.

Ben F. Cone, of Luling, and Kelso, Locke & King, of San Antonio, for plaintiffs in error.

Fred L.-Blundell, of Lockhart, and K. W. Gilmore, of Houston, for defendant in error.

CRITZ, Justice.

This case is before us on motion for rehearing filed by the Salt Flat Water Company, defendant in error.'

In our original opinion we stated that the trial court peremptorily instructed a verdict for the Salt Flat Water Company. This statement is not absolutely correct. At the close of the testimony the court instructed a verdict for the plaintiff for nominal damages, in the sum of $3. This mistake is immaterial.

The motion for rehearing has been carefully considered, and is overruled.
* Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 99-31390

_______________________

NORTH WEST GEOMATICS CANADA, INC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ENGLAND JET CENTER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

Civil Docket #1:98-CV-842

_________________________________________________________________ November 8, 2000

Before GOODWIN * , GARWOOD, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light

of the briefs, record excerpts, arguments and pertinent portions of

the record.

Having done so, we find no clear error in the district

court’s holding that appellant failed to prove lost profits in

accord with the test applicable in Louisiana. There was2

insufficient evidence to support findings that the leased

aircraft’s lease would have been extended from April 9 through July

8; that another aircraft would have been sent to Venezuela to

perform the PITSA II contract; or that any other specific profit

opportunities were foregone after the loss of the leased aircraft.

We therefo re do not reach the court’s findings concerning the

amount of lost profits. Additionally, the district court did not

abuse its discretion by refusing to allow appellant to amend its

complaint and a ssert a vicarious punitive damage claim, which is

both fact intensive and novel in Louisiana, only a few days before

trial.

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED

.
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



In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the annual report
on Form 10-K of Amperico Corp. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the undersigned, Alex Norton, President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.







| | Dated: December 30, 2019 | By: | /s/ Richard DiBiase                                                                 | 
| | ------------------------ | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                          |     | Richard DiBiase, President and Chief Executive 
Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2012, by andamong RBS Commercial Funding Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Tax Administratorand Custodian, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Trimont RealEstate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor and Deutsche Bank Trust CompanyAmericas, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates WFRBS 2012-C7 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms usedherein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.11 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”),and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision, and

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-Q of Information Systems
Associates, Inc. (the "Company") for the three and nine months ended September
30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, Joseph P. Coschera, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify that:




* the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




/s/ Joseph P.
Coschera


Joseph P.
Coschera


Chief
Executive Officer &


Chief
Financial Officer








Date:
November 12, 2008





This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
BAL 05- 102 ATTACHMENT 1 - CSRS PRESENT VALUE FACTORS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2004 

CSRS PRESENT VALUE FACTORS EFFECTIVE 10/01/2004 

USE THESE FACTORS WHEN THE ANNUITY BEGINS ON OR AFTER 10/01/2004 

Age At 

Retirement 

Present 

Value 

Factor 

Age At 

Retirement 

Present 

Value 

Factor 

40 277.6 66 157.9 

41 274.7 67 153.1 

42 272.1 68 148.0 

43 269.1 69 142.8 

44 265.0 70 138.0 

45 260.0 71 133.1 

46 255.1 72 128.0 

47 250.8 73 123.1 

48 245.9 74 118.4 

49 240.3 75 113.5 

50 234.8 76 108.2 

51 230.2 77 103.2 

52 225.9 78 98.2 

53 221.4 79 93.1 

54 216.8 80 88.4 

55 211.9 81 83.6 

56 207.2 82 78.4 

57 202.3 83 73.7 

58 197.6 84 69.5 

59 193.1 85 65.8 

60 188.7 86 62.0 

61 183.7 87 57.9 

62 178.3 88 54.0 

63 173.2 89 50.7 

64 168.2 90 47.2 

65 163.0