alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 of Nine Mile Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,**Michael Christensen**, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,            certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.

 

| /s/ | **MICHAELCHRISTENSEN** |
|-----|------------------------|

 

**Michael Christensen**

Principal Accounting Officer

August 14, 2008

 

 

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 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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### I. T. BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 18667.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1937.

M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, and J. S. Bracewell, of Houston, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky, in a dry area; punishment, a fine of $100.

This is a companion case to that of W. B. Baker v. State, 106 S.W.(2d) 308, in which this court on June 2, 1937, handed down an opinion withdrawing the former opinion of reversal and affirming the judgment. This case in all respects is similar to the one mentioned. For the reasons given in the opinion in Baker v. State, the ■state’s motion for rehearing is granted, the former opinion of reversal herein is withdrawn, and the judgment of the trial court is now affirmed.
#### ALEXANDER v. STATE.

No. 18757.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1937.

Victor Gleckler, of Austin, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, six years in.the penitentiary.

There are nine bills of. exceptions, each of which has been carefully examined. The bill complaining of the refusal of a continuance is insufficient. It does not contain the application for continuance, nor anything else from which this court might be informed of facts sufficient to demonstrate error. Bills of exceptions 2 and 3 have no place in this record. They are marked refused by the trial court, which fact being true they should not have been filed by the clerk or incorporated in this record. Bill of exceptions 4 is insufficient; same merely sets out that the attorney for the appellant, at some prior time', had called the attention of the court to a statement made out of court by some unknown witness of a fact relating to one of the jurors. Such a bill of exceptions is wholly incomplete, and cannot call for any favorable action on the part of this court. Bill No. 5 complains of the refusal of an instructed verdict of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the testimony. The bill shows no error. Bills 6 and 6-A seem to relate to the requirement of an excessive bond and recognizance. Neither bill manifests error. Whether the bond was excessive or not is not properly brought before us, and it does appear from the record that appellant made a sufficient appeal bond. A bill of exceptions simply complaining of the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial, without further showing of error, calls for no consideration. The remaining bill of exceptions contains some statements about the failure of the statement of facts to show the manner of-a witness when he testified; that it does not contain the testimony had on the motion for a continuance, and does not reflect the manner of questioning of state’s attorney, and does not show the proceedings had on recognizance hearing, none of which appear to us to be properly part of a statement of the facts.

No error appearing, the judgment will ■be affirmed.
#### MILLER v. STATE (two cases).

Nos. 16778, 16779.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1934.

See, also, 53 S.W.(2d) 790, 792.

T. K. Irwin, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is misapplication of public-funds; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for-three years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### BELL v. STATE.

No. 17979.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 18, 1936.

Art Schlofman, of Dalhart, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The state’s attorney before this court confesses that bill of exception No. 5 reflects reversible error. Said bill presents the following occurrence: Appellant did not testify.1 In argument to the jury, the district attorney remarked that appellant had not offered any testimony. Appellant’s counsel objected on the ground that said statement was a reference to appellant’s failure to testify. The court overruled the obj ection. The district attorney then said: “The defendant could be the only man to know what was in his mind.” Again appellant’s counsel objected. The district attorney replied: “I am referring to other witnesses besides the defendant. I am not referring to the defendant’s failure to testify.” In qualifying the bill of exception, the trial court states that appellant offered no testimony. The qualification is to the further effect that the statement that appellant had offered no testimony referred to his failure to produce available witnesses. As to the statement by the district attorney that he was not referring to appellant’s failure to testify, the qualification is to the effect that said statement was provoked by appellant’s counsel. Touching the further statement of the district attorney that appellant was the only ope who knew what was in his mind, the trial court states that same was made before the judge’s bench and not the jury. It is not certified that the jury did not hear said statement. We are of the opinion that the district attorney’s statement that- appellant alone knew what was in his mind constituted an indirect reference to his failure to testify. Hence under the mandatory provisions of article 710, C.C.P., it becomes our duty to order a reversal.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court
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 for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (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, PrincipalExecutive
      Officer, Principal Financial Officer, PrincipalAccounting
      Officer, Treasurer
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 28 , 2013

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00978

- CV

KENNETH BONIABY , Appellant

V.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TE LEPHONE COMPANY D/B/ A AT&T TEXAS

AND BRIAN SCHAEFER , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 57614

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 23, 2012 . The clerk’s record

was filed December 6, 2012 . No r eporter’s record was filed. No brief was filed.

On January 8 , 201 3 , this court issued an order stating that unless appellant

submitted a brief, together with a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was2

late, on or before February 7, 2013 , the court would dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution. S ee Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan

.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tyron StreetCharlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**  Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2012, by and among RBS Commercial Funding Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Tax Administrator and Custodian, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS 2012-C7 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.  /s/ Daniel BoberDaniel BoberExecutive Vice President Wells Fargo Bank   

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------|
#### O. G. HARDMAN v. STATE.

No. 20281.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1939.

Garland Brown, of Kermit, and A. A. Brown, of Monahans, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for murder; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for fifteen years.

Upon the written request of the appellant, duly verified by his affidavit, the appeal is dismissed.
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ally Auto Receivables 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 statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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. |

|                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |  |
| /s/ Ryan C. Farris                                            |   |
|                                                          |
| Ryan C. Farris                                                |
| President, Ally Auto Assets LLC, as Depositor                 |
| (Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Castillo, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Emilia
Ochoa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Emilia Ochoa
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
Skip to main content

### In this section

# Search

Search
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 the hhgregg, Inc. (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis L. May, President and Chief Executive 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Dennis L. MayDennis L. MayPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Dated:
August 5, 2010
#### NAMI v. UHR.

No. 10407.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 4, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1939.

Herman G. Nami, of San Antonio, for appellant.

L. J. Gittinger, of San Antonio, for ap-pellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

No briefs for either party have been filed in this case. The appeal will be dismissed. Court of Civil Appeals Rule 38.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6800
RICKEY R. LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LYNN C. PHILLIPS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-106-3-MU) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rickey R. Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief onhis 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lloyd v. Freeman , No. CA-97-106-3-MU (W.D.N.C. May 11, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 13.1








CERTIFICATION





The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of Grupo Financiero Santander México, S.A.B. de C.V. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.  Marcos Alejandro Martínez Gavica, the Executive President and Chief Executive Officer of Grupo Financiero Santander México, S.A.B. de C.V., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and





2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Grupo Financiero Santander México, S.A.B. de C.V.





Date: April 30, 2015










/s/ Marcos Alejandro Martínez GavicaName:    Marcos Alejandro Martínez GavicaTitle:      Executive President 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 of Targanta Therapeutics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George A. Eldridge, 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, to my knowledge that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ George A. Eldridge 
|George A. Eldridge     
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 7, 2008         

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.
#### WAYBOURN v. WAYBOURN et al.

No. 7571.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

*Feb. 18, 1931.*

Edwin G. Moorhead, of Austin, for appellant.

Webb & Felts, of Austin, for appellee Harris & Harris.

BLAIR, J.

On the threshold of this appeal appellees move that appellant’s brief filed herein be not considered, and that the judgment be affirmed because the brief contains no assignments of error. The brief contains no assignments of error, and the duty of this court is well stated in 3 Tex. Jur., 837, § 588, as follows:

> “When the brief contains no assignments of error it will not be considered, and the assignments filed below are not properly before the court. Consequently the assignments are not entitled to consideration, and the appellate court will confine itself to a review of fundamental error apparent on the face of the record. In the absence of fundamental error the judgment or order appealed from will be affirmed.”

See also the numerous cases cited in the footnotes by this authority which support the rule quoted.

We have carefully examined the record for fundamental error and find no such error, and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5116, -5118, -5119, -5120, -5121, -5122, -5123, -5124,

-5125, -5126, -5127, -5128, -5130, -5131, -5132, -5133, -5134, -5135, -5136,

-5137, -5138, -5140, -5141, -5142, -5143, -5144, -5145, -5146, -5147, -5148, -5149,

-5150, -5151, -5152, -5154, -5155, -5156, -5157, -5158, -5159, -5160, -5161, -5162,

-5163, -5164, -5165, -5166, -5167, -5168, -5169, -5170, -5171, and -5172,

JOSEPH KEEFE and MARGUERITE KEEFE, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims in various cases, Judge

Lawrence J. Block.

ON MOTION

Before BRYSON Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The parties submit various motions concerning the disposition of the abovecaptioned appeals.*

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1)	The stay of proceedings in all of these cases shall continue, pending

disposition of Prati v. United States, 2008-5117, and Deegan v. United States, 2008-

Solely for purposes of this order, the court has combined the captions for

the various appeals and otherwise abbreviated the caption. The cases remain separate

for all purposes, they are not consolidated, and the official captions have not been

revised.
5129. Within 21 days after issuance of this court's mandate in those two appeals, the

parties shall file responses with this court indicating how they believe that the abovecaptioned appeals should proceed.

(2)	All other pending motions are denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

JUN 22 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

cc:	Sallie W. Gladney, Esq.

Deborah K. Snyder, Esq.

s8

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

JUN 2 2 2Q09

JAN NORBALY

CLERK

2008-5116, et al.	- 2 -