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

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

I, Shaun P. Davis, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gurata Gold, Inc.
      for the period ended November 30, 2009 (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 Gurata Gold, Inc.                                                                    

Dated: January 13, 2010



| | /s/ Shaun P. Davis                                             
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Shaun P. Davis                                                 
| | President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer,
      Secretary 
| | and Director                                                   
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
      Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                              
| | Gurata Gold, Inc.                                              



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Gurata Gold,
Inc. and will be retained by Gurata Gold, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: March 19, 2010 | /s/ Henry Fong                                                                         |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Henry Fong                                                                             |
|                  |  President, Secretary Treasurer, Director(Principal Executive  Officer) |
EXHIBIT 10.10 

THIRD AMENDMENT TOLOAN AGREEMENT 

        ThisThird Amendment to Loan Agreement (this “Third Amendment”) is made andentered into as of the 29th day of October, 2004, by and between POWELLINDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), and BANK OFAMERICA, N.A., a national banking association (“Lender”). 

WITNESSETH: 

        WHEREAS,pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (as heretofore amended, the“Loan Agreement”) dated October 25, 2001, Lender agreed to make certainloans to Borrower (or its predecessor in interest as the case may be) upon the terms andconditions therein contained; and 

        WHEREAS,pursuant to that certain First Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of September 30, 2002,and that certain Second Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of October 31, 2003, Borrower(or its predecessor in interest as the case may be) and Lender modified and amendedcertain terms and provisions of the Loan Agreement; and 

        WHEREAS,Borrower and Lender desire to further modify and amend certain terms and provisions of theLoan Agreement. 

        NOW,THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which arehereby acknowledged, Borrower and Lender agree as follows: 

        1.              Amendments to Loan Agreement. Subject to and upon the full and complete          satisfaction of the terms and conditions of numerical Section 3 below, the          Loan Agreement is amended and modified as follows: 

        1.1.              The definition of the following term in Section 1.1 of the Loan Agreement is          deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in place thereof: 

        “**TerminationDate**” shall mean the earlier to occur of (a) February 28, 2007, or (b)an Event of Default. 

        1.2.              Section 6.1(a)(i) of the Loan Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the          following is substituted in place thereof:
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, John Isbrandtsen, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K/A of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-4 (the "Exchange Act periodic
    reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do 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 report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K/A.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage
    Corporation as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator.

    Dated:   June 27, 2013


    /s/ John Isbrandtsen
    Signature

    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 11a0876n.06

No. 10-5805

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JAMES FREELS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF TIPTON, TENNESSEE; J.T.

“PANCHO” CHUMLEY; GERALD SPENCER;

CLARK DUNLAP; BOB BEANBLOSSOM,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

TIPTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE WESTERN

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges.

COLE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant James Freels sues Defendant-Appellees County

of Tipton, Tennessee; Sheriff J.T. “Pancho” Chumley; Chief Deputy Clark Dunlap; Deputy Bob

Beanblossom; Deputy Gerald Spencer; and Defendant Tipton County Sheriff’s Department

(collectively, “Tipton”). At the district court level, he brought numerous claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging constitutional and statutory violations, as well as several state law claims. The

district court granted all of Tipton’s motions for summary judgment on all federal claims, finding

that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. It declined to exercise jurisdiction over the
No. 10-5805

Freels v. County of Tipton, Tennessee, et al.

state law claims. On appeal, Freels challenges two of the district court’s conclusions: that the

defendants did not violate his Fourth Amendment right to an arrest free from excessive force, and

that defendants did not violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131

et seq., by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability during the arrest. 

On October 12, 2007, Plaintiff-Appellant James Freels went to the Sheriff’s Department,

housed in the Tipton County Justice Center, to obtain incident reports concerning a recent property

dispute with his neighbor. After obtaining the report, Freels proceeded to the clerk’s office to initiate

a criminal warrant against his neighbor. At the clerk’s office, Freels identified himself by name. An

employee recognized his name as corresponding to an outstanding arrest warrant for a minor

misdemeanor and, pursuant to city policy, summoned the Sheriff’s Department. Defendants Chief

Deputy Clark Dunlap, Deputy Beanblossom, and Deputy Jay Rodriguez proceeded to the clerk’s

office, where they placed Freels under arrest, confiscated his cane, and escorted him to the jail,

located elsewhere in the building. 

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Coble v. City of White House, Tenn.,

634 F.3d 865, 867 (6th Cir. 2011). Upon hearing oral argument and carefully considering the

arguments and record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We agree with the district

court that the officers reasonably accommodated Freels’s disability, and consequently we do not

decide whether the ADA applies to arrests. On all other issues, we AFFIRM the entry of judgment

in favor of defendants for the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion.

- 2 -
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
undersigned officer of Lodestar Mining, Incorporated (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report, on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version 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.




/s/
      Ian McKinnonIan
      McKinnon, Chief Executive Officer, Director, Principal
                    Executive
      Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal
                    Accounting
      Officer,
Treasurer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10837

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IRA WAYNE PRIVETTE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 4:94-CV-357)

May 16, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 

Appellant Ira Wayne Privette appeals the denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, in which he argued

that the prosecution knowingly used the perjured testimony of a

conspirator, his attorney performed ineffectively in several

instances, the court erred in applying the Sentencing Guidelines to

him, and the co-conspirator and government conspired to frame him.
 

1 See United States v. Elwood, 993 F.2d 1146, 1151 (5th Cir.

1993) (co-conspirator liable for substantive § 924(c) offense

committed by another conspirator). 

2

On appeal, Privette has abandoned his assertions that the

government attempted to frame him. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d

222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). In its place, he has added a new claim:

that his conviction for using a firearm during and in relation to

a drug-trafficking crime is invalid under a recent Supreme Court

case, Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995). The court

declines to address this claim as it is raised for the first time

on appeal from denial of habeas relief, and Privette has not shown

plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 

 F.3d (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 1996) (No. 95-50007). In any

event, the Bailey claim is without merit because the only firearms

count of which Privette now stands convicted (count 9) alleged that

Apodaca used the firearm, and Privette was criminally responsible

for that use as a willful and knowing co-conspirator of Apodaca.

The evidence clearly established that Apodaca was “using” a gun

within the meaning of Bailey.

1 As for the remainder of Privette’s

claims, this court has reviewed the record, the parties’ arguments,

the magistrate judge’s findings, and the district court’s adoption

of those findings. See United States v. Privette, No. 4:94-CV-357-

D (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 1995). This court affirms for essentially the

reasons cited by the magistrate judge. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
99.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Suraj
Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) for the nine months ended May 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Surjit Singh
Gill, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
 
 
 Date:
June 10, 2009
 
 
 SURJIT SINGH
GILL
 Surjit
Singh Gill
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 President
and Director
 
 
 
 
 -1-
#### COCKRELL v. STATE.

No. 188830.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1937.

A. Q. Mustain, of Aubrey, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for aggravated assault; punishment, a fine of $25 and ninety days in the county jail.

The record is here without statement of facts or bills of exception.

. No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
***Exhibit 99.1******NewsRelease          ******Copano Energy, L.L.C.***       Contacts: Matt Assiff, SVP & CFO    Copano Energy, L.L.C.    713-621-9547**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**        Jack Lascar / jlascar@drg-e.com    Anne Vincent/ avincent@drg-e.com              DRG&E / 713-529-6600**COPANO ENERGY TO PRESENT AT THE**
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Dean L. Cash, Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Associates 12, LLC, Managing Member of ATEL 12, LLC
(the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: November 13, 2007

|                                                                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                 
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                                                                                                 
|Dean L. Cash                                                                                                                     
|Principal executive officer of Registrant; chief executive officer and director of ATEL Associates 12, LLC, Manager of Registrant

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.
#### CONKLIN v. STATE.

No. 17608.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 26, 1935.

T. R. Odell, of Haskell, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

The offense is robbery; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for nine years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. '

In the transcript before us it is apparent that as the copy of the judgment was originally “typed” it read that “Roy King” was adjudged guilty, etc. A pen has been run through the typewritten name of Roy King and above it written in longhand with ink has been inserted the name “Rosco Conk-*725lin,” this appellant. Later on in the judgment as it appears in the transcript it provides that the state recover from Rosco Conklin all costs expended in the prosecution. In a brief on file attorney for -appellant says that in a copy of the transcript it is shown that King was adjudged .guilty. There is no claim that the judgment as it appears on the court minutes is incorrect. The indictment was against appellant, the charge of the court refers to him by name, and the sentence was pronounced against him. The clerk of the district court certifies that the transcript as it appears before us is “a true and correct transcript * * * as the originals appear of file and of record in my office in court house in Haskell, Texas.” Under the law the transcript is sent directly to the clerk of this court by the district clerk. Until the contrary is shown, the presumption would prevail that the name of “Roy King” was inadvertently typed in copying the-judgment, but was corrected by, or under the direction of, the district clerk before he certified to the correctness of the transcript which is on file here.

No error being perceived or pointed out, the judgment is affirmed.
EX-34.5
(logo) Grant Thornton

Audit * Tax * Advisory

Grant Thornton LLP
201 South College Street
Suite 2500
Charlotte, NC 28244

T 704.632.3500

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors

Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria ("Management's Report"), that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. (the
"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2013, except for those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A)
within Exhibit A. The transactions covered by this report are only those
transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust, senior trust or
operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the "Platform").
Reference Exhibit B for the transactions covered by this examination. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
Platform based on our examination.


Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of 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 for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. 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
applicable servicing criteria.


1


(page)


In our opinion, management's assertion that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.
complied with the applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit A and
Exhibit B as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


Charlotte, North Carolina

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

March 1, 2014


2
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 1358 Lower Tribunal No. 2019

- CF

- 015447

- B

- O

_____________________________ E DWARD H IDALGO T OHORTON , Appellant ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

. Tanya Davis Wilson , Judge.
May 7 , 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

. WOZNIAK, MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., c oncur.

Marc Anthony Consalo, of The Consalo Law Firm, Orlando, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILE D