alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies thatto his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal periodended June 30, 2009 of Allstate Life Insurance Company filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of Allstate Life InsuranceCompany.

 

 
| August 11,  2009 |                                               |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                  | /s/  George E. Ruebenson                           |
|                  | George E. Ruebenson                                |
|                  | President  and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                  |                                               |
|                  |                                               |
|                  | /s/  John C. Pintozzi                              |
|                  | John  C. Pintozzi                                  |
|                  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

E-5

----
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 96-11008

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL A. HEKIMAIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CR-80-R-1

_________________________________________________________________ June 12, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael A. Hekimain appeals his conviction for fail ure to

appear for service of his sentence. Hekimain contends that the

district court abused its discretion i n denying his motion to

recuse. Hekimain also contends that the district court erred in

denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility

and in enhancing his offense level for obstruction of justice.-2-

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion to recuse. U nited States v. Landerman

,

___ F.3d

___ (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 1997, Nos. 94-10028, 94-10403), 1997 WL

144112. The district court’s statements and actions occurred in

the course of judicial proceedings, did not rely upon knowledge

acquired outside such proceedings, and did not display deep-seated

antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible. L anderman

,

1997 WL 144112; Liteky v. United States

, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). The

district court also did not err in denying Hekimain a two-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility. U nited States v.

Vital

, 68 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Marmolejo

, 106

F.3d 1213 (5th Cir. 1 997). Finally, the district court did not

clearly err in enhancing Hekimain’s offense level for obstruction

of justice. U nited States v. Storm

, 36 F.3d 1289 (5th Cir. 1994),

cert. denied

, 115 S.Ct. 1798 (1995); United States v. Dunnigan

, 507

U.S. 87 (1993).

A F F I R M E D.
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 Quarterly Report of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Warren P. Levy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 position and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Warren P. Levy     
|Warren P. Levy         
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 15, 2004      



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
------ REF ID:A64739 

(lkulie ltrs NJPB.-1' 201 lriedmant William 1., o 166 76lf., 

Sub,11 Otticers Honol"AU"f Retired. Liet1 3 September 1954) 

lat Ind 10 September 1954 

310 Second. street, S.'Ba 1 Washington 3, D .. C. 

'.rot Tho AdJutant General, Washington 251 n.c. 

l.. I regret that I tailed to notit,y 10u by l June 1954 or 

the continuation ot 'tfl¥ CUl'rent '44reee. I did not knov ot W• 

:req.uirement ud Mlumed the 84.dreae voul.d at.and until )"Ou vere 

n.ot:1t1ed of a chan&e. 

2. Ctepa will be take;11 to notit;y ;you annuel l.y in future~ 

@'pproved for Release bv NSA on 07-17-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352\3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

     I, Dr. George Rozakis, Chief Executive Officer of Implantable Vision, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), do 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, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

     (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.


                                        By: /s/ Dr. George Rozakis
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Dr. George Rozakis
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer

March 16, 2007

----------
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Implantable Vision, Inc. and
will be retained by Implantable Vision, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1874

In re: JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR., 

Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing the warden 

of the institution where he is incarcerated and the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons and its agents to provide him with additional 

food at mealtimes and directing that he be rescored in the 

prison classification system. We conclude that Roudabush is not 

entitled to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988). 

The relief sought by Roudabush is not available by way of 

mandamus because Roudabush fails to establish any clear right to 

relief from this court in the form of an order directing the 

provision of additional meals or rescoring in the prison 

classification system. Accordingly, we deny the petition and 

supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with 
3

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
NO. 07-07-0128-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

FEBRUARY 19, 2008

______________________________

JOHN KEVIN OAKES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 372 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY; ND

NO. 0955781D; HONORABLE SCOTT WISCH, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Following his plea of not guilty, appellant John Kevin Oakes was convicted by a jury

of murder and punishment was assessed at twenty years confinement. Both the clerk’s

record and reporter’s record have been filed in his appeal. Both appellant and the State

have filed briefs. On suggestion of the death of appellant’s attorney, we now abate the

appeal and remand the cause to the trial court.

On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to determine the

following:
2

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; and

2. whether appellant is indigent and entitled to new appointed counsel.

Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue the appeal and is

indigent, and that new counsel should be appointed, the trial court shall appoint new

counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name,

address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be

included in an order appointing counsel. If necessary, the trial court shall execute findings

of fact, conclusions of law, and any necessary orders it may enter regarding the

aforementioned issues and cause its findings, conclusions, and orders, if any, to be

included in a supplemental clerk’s record. A supplemental reporter’s record of any hearing

held shall also be included in the appellate record. Finally, the trial court shall file the

supplemental clerk’s record and the supplemental reporter’s record, if any, with the Clerk

of this Court by March 19, 2008. 

Should new counsel be appointed, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to accept and

file any amended or supplemental brief newly-appointed counsel desires to file. Absent

a motion for extension of time, new counsel’s brief shall be due within 30 days after filing

of the supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records. Any brief the State files in response to

new counsel’s brief, if any, shall be due 30 days following filing of new counsel’s brief. Tex.

R. App. P. 38.6(a) & (b). 
3

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



[KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP LETTERHEAD]


                        Independent Accountants' Report

First Union Master Credit Card Trust
c/o The Bank of New York, as Trustee
101 Barclay Street
New York, New York 10286

Moody's Investors Service
99 Church Street
New York, New York 10007

Standard & Poor's
25 Broadway
New York, New York 10004

First Union Direct Bank, N.A.
600 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30903

We have examined management's assertion about First Union Direct Bank, N.A.'s
compliance, as Servicer, with the servicing requirements in Article IV, Section
4.03 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the First Union Master Credit
Card Trust dated as of September 29, 1995, as amended, including supplements
dated March 5, 1996 and April 23, 1996, by and between First Union Direct Bank,
N.A., as Transferor and Servicer, and The Bank of New York, as Trustee (the
"Agreement"), during the period January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997,
included in the accompanying Management Representation on First Union Direct
Bank, N.A.'s Compliance, as Servicer, with the Servicing Requirements of the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Management is responsible for First Union
Direct Bank, N.A.'s compliance with the aforementioned section of the Agreement.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about
First Union Direct Bank, N.A.'s compliance based upon our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about First Union Direct Bank, N.A.'s
compliance with the aforementioned section of the Agreement and performing such
other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on First Union Direct Bank,
N.A.'s compliance with that section.

In our opinion, management's assertion that First Union Direct Bank, N.A. was
materially in compliance with the servicing requirements in Article IV, Section
4.03 of the Agreement during the period January 1, 1997 through December 31,
1997, is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

March 26, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Institutional Properties 2000 First Quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                              0000352983
<NAME>                             Consolidated Capital Institutional Properties
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                 6,063
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                41,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                        10,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        90,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               26,999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            62,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          90,433
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       2,846
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       2,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             225
<EPS-BASIC>                                             1.12 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2015097EN.01000102.xml

| 24.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 97/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7504 — Carlyle/CITIC/AsiaSat)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 97/02)

On 17 March 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7504. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7504. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Order entered November 22, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01319-CV

IN RE ROBERT E. MARZETT, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 7

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 001-02121-2016

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s November 9, 2016 petition 

for writ of mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs, if any, of this original proceeding.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


October 8, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2090


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2090 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-257954 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
#### Reysen, Appellant, vs. Roate, Respondent.

*February %0*—

*March 10, 1896.*

*Trespass: Removal of ice from millpond: Rights of lessee of water power.*

1. The lessee of a mill and of the water power and rights of flowage appurtenant thereto, who is not a riparian proprietor on the millpond nor the owner in fee of the bed of the pond, cannot maintain trespass against one who entered upon the pond when frozen, placed timbers thereon, and cut and removed ice therefrom, but did not thereby interfere with the lessee’s right of flowage or lessen his water supply.

*2.*Ice which forms on streams or ponds the bed of which is the subject of private ownership belongs to the owner of such bed, and he may maintain trespass for its removal.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Sheboy-gan county: if. S. Gilson, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*M. C.*Mead, for the appellant.

For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of *J. H. James,*attorney, and *A. O. Prescott,*of counsel.

To the point that ice formed on artificial ponds and nonnav-igable streams belongs to the owner of the soil under the water, they cited Gould, "Waters, § 191; 3 Lawson, Rights, Rem. *■&*Pr. § 1345; 9 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 860, and notes 3, 4; id. 862; Anderson, Law Diet. 519, 520; *Bigelow <o.*Shaw, 65 Mich. 341; *Brown v. Cunningham,*82 Iowa, 512; *Allen v. Weber,*80 Wis. 531.

Winslow, J.

The plaintiff was the lessee of a mill on the Sheboygan river, and of the water power and the rights of flowage appurtenant thereto; but was not a riparian proprietor. on the millpond, nor the owner in fee of the bed of the pond. The defendant entered upon the pond when frozen, and placed timbers thereon, and cut and removed ice therefrom, but did not thereby interfere with the plaintiff’s right of flowage or lessen his water supply., Can the plaint*544iff maintain trespass ? The circuit court held that the action could not be-maintained by the plaintiff, and we are satisfied that the judgment is right. It is settled in this state that the title to the bed of a stream is in the riparian owners, whether the stream be navigable or not. *Olson v.*Merrill, 42 Wis. 203. Ice which forms on streams or ponds the bed of which is the subject of private ownership belongs to the owner of such bed, and such owner may maintain trespass for its removal. Gould, Waters, § 191, and authorities cited; *Bigelow v. Shaw,*65 Mich. 341. The appellant neither owned the bed of the pond, nor did the removal of the ice in any way lessen his water supply or interfere with his rights of fiowage. Therefore it is plain that he had no right of action therefor.

*By the*Court.— Judgment affirmed.
([l 

(") 

m 

fJJ 

fJJ 

::::!"! 

([l 

0... 

m 

::::l 

0... 

m 

--, 

0 

< 

([l 

0... 

....... 

0 

--, 

--, 

([l 

I l([l 

m 

I ([l I ~fJJ I o-' . 

z 

(/) 

p'-

0 

::::l 

0 

w 

I 

w 

----"-

w ' 

0 

----"-

-G. 

c 

--, 

fJJ 

c 

m 

::::l 

.--..-

.--..-

0 

m 

0 

----"-

w 

01 

w 

ii 

t=' 

ii 

'-..._ " ' "'- "'·· 

l!I:!~ ii~ ~!~ 1!1~ i~!l!!fll~ ~ ~ 

·;;1:f i!i i;i 1i~f :iliilllfl I 11

f (1ai1' i:l iii ~ii!' ~1:;!(~~1!i ~ 11' i-1 oll ~11·~•1rt i 

· I ! i Ii: r i I 'I ff ! f • Ii f le' {I E I li i a 

1 .... •10 r I I !~I ep.· -llC'li I ~g1 ~~ II ~~ 1•·~~''1· 4 ~ i..i • i ~!." .. ! t:; 11. l 'i i ! i c ~ ~ ff! .. ~! iit ,,~ .. ~~11. 

ar1:1 ·f1 11! l~f ;} ~fr1 ~i iqe ~~ Eli }~~ r &~13-'~ ~ aJi •' ~q I: I 11 11

!,, ~t ~~1 

1

'f ii ~,-~ a 

I = I 1~ l ! t~q 0 

l.f !. & it'' •a •-f!. :I ~f s:; ~=-- •. I ::.. .. J I~ a.f ~! I; ,- :~i-jfj.~ . 

A I. 

I !f I f ~ 

I ! I I I .. 

i ! s. 

! I 

I i -

t: 

I 

; 

.... 

~ I 

I 

•. i .. 

., 1' 

:~ ~ 

4 hj . 

..... 1-1 

t:I 

.. :~ 

. "' 

' "' "" h) 

• ••