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

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                  Certification
            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)

         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), each
of the undersigned officers of deltathree, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "
Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002
(the "Form 10-K/A") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: April 29, 2003                       /s/ Shimmy Zimels
                                            ------------------
                                            Shimmy Zimels
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Dated: April 29, 2003                       /s/ Paul C. White
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Paul C. White
                                            Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies each 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000


<S>                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                        MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                                   24,154
<SECURITIES>                                                             13,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            24,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         67,473
<PP&E>                                                                   16,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          113,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    18,200
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                               93,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            113,086
<SALES>                                                                  20,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         20,348
<CGS>                                                                     7,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                             7,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         14,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                         (344)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          (1,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               (191)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                        (963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              463
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                               (500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                             (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             (0.04)


</TABLE>
#### Lovett *v.*Pope.

No. 13382.

September 25, 1940.

*B. M. Daley, A. L. Hatcher,*and *L. F. Watson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Q. C. Crockett,*contra.

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

When this case was here on a former occasion it was held: “It was error to dismiss the action on the grounds that no cause was stated, and that the contract alleged as the cause of action was unilateral and without consideration.” *Pope*v. *Lovett,*188 *Ga.*524. On a subsequent trial before the jury the evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to sustain the allegations of the petition. Consequently the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which contained only the usual general grounds.

*Judgment, affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period April 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     
|---------------------
|                     
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
|Kenneth A. Shewer    

Date: August 14, 2007
Filed June 23, 1891.

#### John W. Haywood, Adm’r, Resp’t, *v.*The N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., App’lt.

*Alonzo P. Strong,*for resp’t; *S.*W. *Jackson,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 35 N. Y. State Rep , 748.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Theresa G. MORALES Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4297

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Filed: July 25, 2017

Clifford R. Cronk, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Theresa G. Morales, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Theresa Morales challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following her guilty plea to drug and gun charges. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Morales, has filed 2 motions, in which she seeks appointment of new counsel; and asserts that she should have received a shorter sentence given her minor role, and that counsel was ineffective.

As to counsel’s argument that the below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable, we conclude that the district court, did not abuse its discretion, as it properly considered the' 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was below the Guidelines range, see United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

To the extent Morales is arguing that she should have received a minor role reduction, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in imposing the role enhancement (rather than a role reduction). See United States v. Camacho, 555 F.3d 695, 706 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). We decline to address the ineffective-assis*483tance claim on direct appeal, as it would be better litigated in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny both motions for new counsel, and affirm.

1

. The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### Duane Letroy BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIDGEWATER CAPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6299

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Duane Letroy Berry, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Duane Letroy Berry appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his common law tort complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012), dismissing as moot his motion to amend an order regarding his prisoner trust account, and denying his motions for entry of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, for writ of assistance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 70, for a pretrial conference, and to freeze assets. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Berry v. Bridgewater Capital,*No. 3:17-cv-00013-GCM (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2017; Feb. 23, 2017). We dispense with 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.

*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 the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Primecore  Mortgage
Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  Report"),  and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 Partnership.


/s/ MICHAEL RIDER
---------------------------
Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
of Primecore Mortgage Trust, Inc.
April 14, 2004
OFFICERS CERTIFICATE OF THE MASTER SERVICER
RE: ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

The undersigned,  each a duly authorized  representative of Irwin Union Bank and
Trust,  ("Master  Servicer"),  as Master  Servicer  pursuant  to the Pooling and
Servicing  Agreement,  dated  January 31, 1999,  by and among Bear Stearns Asset
backed  Securities,  Inc.,  as  Depositor,  Irwin Union Bank and Trust as Master
Servicer,  Irwin  Funding  Corp.,  as  Transferor,  and Norwest Bank  Minnesota,
National Association as Trustee (as such agreement may be amended,  supplemented
or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Pooling and Servicing  Agreement")
do hereby certify as follows:

A.         Capitalized  terms used in this  Certificate  have  their  respective
           meanings set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. References
           herein to certain  Sections and  subsections  are  references  to the
           respective  Sections  and  subsections  of the Pooling and  Servicing
           Agreement.

B.         This  Certificate is being delivered  pursuant to Section 5.16 of the
           Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

C.         The Master Servicer is the Master Servicer under the Pooling and
           Servicing Agreement.

D.         The undersigned are duly authorized  Servicing Officers of the Master
           Servicer.

E.         A review of the  activities  of the Master  Servicer  during the 1999
           fiscal year and of its  performance  under the Pooling and  Servicing
           Agreement has been made under our supervision.

F.         To the best of our knowledge,  based on the  above-mentioned  review,
           the Master  Servicer has fulfilled all of its  obligations  under the
           Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  and  any  applicable  Supplements
           throughout the 1999 fiscal year.



IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Master  Servicer  has caused  this  Certificate  to be
executed  and  delivered on its behalf by its duly  authorized  officers on this
23rd day of May 2000.

IRWIN UNION BANK AND TRUST

By:  Elena Delgado
     Senior Vice-President
     Home Equity Lending

By:  Edwin K. Corbin
     Senior Vice-President
     Business Development &
     Secondary Marketing
Exhibit 10.1


 


Court Order on Trustees’ Compensation
(and annual hearing of accounts),


dated May 22, 2012, but effective January
1, 2012.


 


 


	STATE OF MINNESOTA	 	DISTRICT COURT
	 	 	 
	COUNTY OF RAMSEY	 	SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
	 	 	 
	 	 	Court File No. C5-72-386008
	 	 	 
	In the Matter of the Trust known as	 	 
	Great Northern Iron Ore Properties	 	ORDER
	 	 	 
	 	 	 


 


This matter came on
for hearing before the Court on May 22, 2012, upon the Petition for Allowance of Accounts and for Instructions by Joseph S. Micallef,
Roger W. Staehle, Robert A. Stein and James E. Swearingen, the duly appointed and acting Trustees of the Trust known as Great Northern
Iron Ore Properties.


Sue Ann Nelson of
Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., appeared on behalf of the Trustees of the Trust known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties.


The Court, having
heard the arguments of counsel, and based upon the Petition, the affidavits filed in support of the Petition and the entire files
and record herein,


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:


		1.	Due, published and mailed notice of this hearing was given pursuant to the Court’s Order
dated April 25, 2012, as more fully appears from the proof of publication and the Affidavits of Mailing contained in the file.



		2.	The accounts of the Trustees for the calendar year 2011 are approved, settled and allowed in all
respects.



		3.	The requested increase in the compensation of the President of the Trustees from $180,000 per year
to $200,000 per year and an increase in the bonus component from a maximum of $80,000 per year to a maximum of $100,000 per year
(computed as 1% of the excess of the gross income of the Trust over $5 million for the year up to the maximum of $100,000), both
effective as of January 1, 2012, with the $100,000 bonus component payable in full for 2012 subject to the formula calculation,
is granted.



 



    	 



    	 



    

Exhibit 10.1 – Court Order (continued)


 


		4.	The requested increase in the compensation of the Trustees other than the President from $70,000
per year to $80,000 per year, effective as of January 1, 2012, is granted.



		5.	The requested additional compensation of $5,000 per year for the Trustee serving in the role of
Audit Committee Chair, effective as of January 1, 2012, is granted.



	 	 	 	BY THE COURT

 	 
	Dated: 	May 22, 2012	 	/s/  Margaret M. Marrinan	 
	 	 	 	Margaret M. Marrinan	 
	 	 	 	Judge of District Court	 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


2
#### Edward Vincent RAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlo MACERI, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15886

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 4, 2017

*476Edward Vincent Ray, Jr., Soledad, CA, pro se.

Ashlee Fletcher, Struck, Wieneke *&*Love, PLC, Daniel Patrick Struck, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Kevin L. Nguyen, Struck Love Bojanowski <&■ Acedo PLC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Vincent Ray, Jr., who was housed in Arizona when he filed this action, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Brodheim v. Cry,*584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Maceri’s allegedly retaliatory cell search failed to advance a legitimate penological purpose. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); *Pratt v. Rowland,*65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[Pjlaintiff bears the burden of ... proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ray’s request for judicial notice. *See*Fed R. Evid. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it ... can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); *Lee v. City of Los Angeles,*250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31

          CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K

      Re:   Fremont Home Loan Trust, Series 2006-3
            Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-3

      I, Robert McGinnis, certify that:

      l. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period included in the year covered by
this report in Form 10-K of Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-3 (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 upon the annual 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 each of its
obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; 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.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Fremont
Investment & Loan and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

                                        FINANCIAL ASSET SECURITIES CORP.

                                        By: /s/ Robert McGinnis
                                        Name: Robert McGinnis
                                        Title: President
                                        Date: May 31, 2007
#### Rhonda PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Successor by merger with Wachovia Mortgage FSB formerly known as World Savings Bank FSB its Successors and/or Assigns; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56017

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Rhonda Pittman, Pro Se

Robert Collings Little, Esquire, Attorney, Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell & Trytten, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

*521Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rhonda Pittman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc.,*560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction); *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court properly dismissed Pittman’s TILA claim for damages because Pittman failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Wells Fargo violated TILA or that Pittman’s claim was not time-barred. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages under TILA must be brought within one year of the alleged violation).

To the extent Pittman seeks injunctive relief related to the nonjudicial foreclosure sale, this court cannot grant that relief because the sale of the property has already been completed. *See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC,*669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he sale of the real properties prevents this Court from granting the requested relief and accordingly renders this appeal moot.”); *Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker,*22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.