alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011  filed with the Securities and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Justin C. Ferri, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 13, 2011 |                                           |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                           |
|                    |                                           |
| By:                     | /s/ JUSTIN C. FERRI                            |   |
|                    | Justin C. Ferri                                |   |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager |   |
|                    | (Principal Executive Officer)                  |   |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Lawyers Mortgage Company. Brentmore Estates, Inc., et al., Appellants; Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Lawyers Mortgage Company, Respondent. Reorganization Managers of Lawyers Mortgage Company.

Argued May 25, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*618
      *Leon Leighton, Charles L. Sylvester*and *Sidney Karris*for appellants.

*Edward F. Keenan*and *Joseph Lapidus*for respondent.

*K. B. Egg'mton for*Reorganization Managers of Lawyers Mortgage Company.

Order affirmed with costs; no opinion. (See 291 N. Y. 721.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lotjghkan, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ,
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul William CRISWELL Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1173

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 5, 2017

Filed: May 9, 2017

*437Kristin Huntington Bryant, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Anne E. Gardner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chris Givens, Cameron C. McCree, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Alexander D. Morgan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Paul William Criswell, Pro Se

Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

While Paul Criswell was serving a term of federal supervised release, the district court1 revoked supervision and sentenced him to serve eight months in prison and one additional year of supervised release. Criswell appeals, and we affirm.

For reversal, Criswell argues that the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when imposing his revocation sentence, and failed to discuss the weight that the court was giving to those factors in imposing additional supervised release. Because no objection was raised below, we review for plain error, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009), and we find none, see United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2017) (plain error standard). The district court stated that it had considered the section 3553(a) factors; and in particular, the court expressed concern that Criswell had continued to violate his release conditions while he was out on bond awaiting sentencing following revocation of his supervision. The court also noted that Criswell had failed to take advantage of drug treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (history and characteristics of defendant); United States v. Godsey, 690 F.3d 906, 912 (8th Cir. 2012) (mechanical recitation of § 3553(a) factors at sentencing is not required; it simply must be clear that court actually considered factors in determining sentence); United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911, 915 (8th Cir. 2007) (if court adverts to some § 3553(a) considerations, this court has been satisfied that court was aware of statute’s entire contents); see also United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (court has wide latitude to assign some § 3553(a) factors greater weight than others in determining appropriate sentence).

To the extent Criswell also seeks to challenge the district court’s finding that he violated his release conditions, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in this determination, which was based on testimony presented at the revocation hearing, as well as Criswell’s own admissions, See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913-14 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for factual findings in supervised release revocation).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr„ United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                                    Ending
Class                    Interest          Principal            Losses           Balance
<S>                  <C>               <C>                    <C>              <C>
A-1                   2,305,705.07       20,589,485.46         0.00            41,410,514.54
A-2                   1,124,350.00                0.00         0.00            22,600,000.00
A-3                   1,118,150.00                0.00         0.00            21,400,000.00
A-4                   1,040,250.00                0.00         0.00            19,000,000.00


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  of  Concierge
Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December
31,  2003  (the  "Report"),  I,  Allen  E.  Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); 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:  February  16,  2004
                                        /s/  Allen  E.  Kahn
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Allen  E.  Kahn
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-QSB  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.



















                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
<PAGE>
 
                        PACIFIC GATEWAY EXCHANGE, INC.
         EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                  (in thousands, except net income per share)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     THREE MONTHS             SIX MONTHS
                                                                     ENDED JUNE 30,          ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                                  ------------------      -------------------
                                                                  1997        1996         1997       1996
                                                                  ----        ----         ----       ----
<S>                                                            <C>          <C>            <C>        <C>
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
 AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE:

Average shares outstanding                                      18,938       13,992         18,938       14,028

Add:
   Common stock equivalent of stock
         options and warrants                                      580           99             690         162
                                                                ------       ------          ------      ------
                                                                19,518       14,091          19,628      14,190
                                                                ======       ======          ======      ======
Net income                                                       3,042          762           5,504       1,129
                                                                ======       ======          ======      ======
Primary net income per share                                      0.16         0.05            0.28        0.08
                                                                ======       ======          ======      ======

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
 AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
 ASSUMING FULL DILUTION:

Average shares outstanding                                      18,938       13,992         18,938       14,028

Add:
   Common stock equivalent of stock
         options and warrants                                      622           99             675         162
                                                                ------       ------          ------      ------
                                                                19,560       14,091          19,613      14,190
                                                                ======       ======          ======      ======
Net income                                                       3,042          762           5,504       1,129
                                                                ======       ======          ======      ======
Fully diluted net income per share                                0.16         0.05            0.28        0.08
                                                                ======       ======          ======      ======
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.01
  SCHEDULE II-VALUATION
    AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
  Years
    ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006
  Balance at


Charged to





Write-offs


Balance atBeginning


Costs and





Net of


End ofof Year


Expenses


Other


Recoveries


Year(in thousands)Allowance for Doubtful Accounts2008

$
3,687


$
823


$
5


$
(799
)

$
3,7162007


3,122



1,271



(4
)


(702
)

$
3,6872006


1,197



1,721



1,495
(1)


(1,291
)


3,122Valuation Allowance for Deferred Tax Assets2008

$
303,570


$
7,320


$







$
310,8902007


357,910


$
(54,340
)

$







$
303,5702006


399,444



(41,534
)










357,910     (1)
    
    Due to acquisition of Moving.com.
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 ADVISORY AGREEMENT 

BY AND BETWEEN 
 COLE CREDIT PROPERTY TRUST IV, INC. 
 AND 

COLE REIT ADVISORS IV, LLC 
 This FIRST AMENDMENT of the ADVISORY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of February 23, 2012 by and between COLE CREDIT PROPERTY TRUST IV, INC., a Maryland corporation (the
“Company”), and COLE REIT ADVISORS IV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Advisor”). This Amendment amends that certain Advisory Agreement, dated as of January 20, 2012, by and between the Company
and the Advisor (the “Advisory Agreement”). All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given to each in the Advisory Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, the Board, including all of the Independent Directors, has determined to amend Section 4.02 of the Advisory Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, Section 6.04 of the Advisory Agreement provides that the Advisory Agreement shall not be changed, modified, or amended, in
whole or in part, except by an instrument in writing signed by both parties thereto, or their respective successors or assignees; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 1. The second sentence of Section 4.02 of the Advisory Agreement is hereby deleted
and replaced with the following: 
 This Agreement also may be terminated at the option of either party upon 60 days written
notice without cause or penalty (if termination is by the Company, then such termination shall be upon the approval of a majority of the Independent Directors). 
 2. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party whose signature appears thereon, and all of such counterparts shall
together constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment shall become binding when one or more counterparts hereof, individually or taken together, shall bear the signatures of all of the parties. 

3. Except as specifically amended hereby and as previously amended, the Advisory Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first
above written. 
  

	
	COLE CREDIT PROPERTY TRUST IV, INC.
	
	/s/ Christopher H. Cole
	 Christopher H. Cole

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President



  

	
	COLE REIT ADVISORS IV, LLC
	
	/s/ Marc T. Nemer
	 Marc T. Nemer
 Chief
Executive Officer and President




  
 -2-
#### In the Matter of Beatrice A., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 624]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about January 3, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the second degree, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s fact-finding determination was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of that evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the court and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
Order entered May 13 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01678

- CR

CHARLES RICHARD VAND IVER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F

- 1256764

- M



### O RDER

T he Court DENIES appellant’s May 1, 2014 motion for supplemental reporter’s record.

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42545

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

LUIS ANGEL SAUCEDO

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 685

Filed: October 30, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell , District Judge.

Appeal from judgment of conviction, dismissed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen , Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Luis Angel Saucedo pleaded guilty to injury to child, felony, Idaho Code § 18

- 1501(1)

.
The parties entered into a binding I.C.R. 11 plea agreement. Purs uant to the plea agreement,

Saucedo waived his right to appeal his sentence. The district court imposed a unified ten

- year

sentence, with four years determinate

. Saucedo appeals, contending that his sentence is

excessive.

We hold that Saucedo’s appellate challenge to the excessiveness of his sentence has been

waived by his plea agreement. See I.C.R. 11(f)(1); State v. Rodriguez , 142 Idaho 786, 787, 133

P.3d 1251, 1252 (Ct. App. 2006). Saucedo ’s plea agreeme nt contained a clause which required

S aucedo to waive his right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, we dismiss Saucedo’s appeal.
EXHIBIT 32

                                  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 for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Form 10-K") 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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 26, 2004                                    /s/ Shimmy Zimels
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         Shimmy Zimels
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


Dated: March 26, 2004                                    /s/ Paul C. White
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         Paul C. White
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


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.
Exhibit 31.2

Panolam Industries International, Inc.  Certification pursuant to Section 302  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Certification

I,
Vincent S. Miceli, as the principal financial officer of the registrant, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Panolam Industries International, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 28, 2008

|/s/VINCENT S. MICELIVincent S. Miceli Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### COLLINS *v.*STROH BREWERY COMPANY.

Unemployment Compensation — Disqualification for Benefits.

Award of unemployment compensation benefits is affirmed where the Court of Appeals is not convinced that the facts as found by the appeal board demonstrate disqualifying misconduct by the employee claimant as a matter of law.

Reference for Points in Headnote

48 Am Jur, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Retirement Eunds § 38.

Appeal from Wayne, Kaufman (Nathan), J.

Submitted Division 1 June 4, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 4,514.)

Decided June 10, 1968.

Reginald C. Collins presented his claim for unemployment compensation against his employer, Stroh Brewery Company, a Michigan corporation. Compensation awarded by appeal board and affirmed by *655circuit court. Defendant employer appeals.

Affirmed.

*Bernard Adams, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, and *George M. Blaty,*Assistant Attorney General, for Employment Security Commission.

*Butsel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Kennedy (John B. Weaver,*of counsel), for defendant Stroll Brewery Company.

Per Curiam.

Reginald C. Collins was awarded unemployment compensation benefits and bis ex-employer, Strob Brewery Company, appeals.

We are not convinced that tbe facts as found by tbe appeal board demonstrate disqualifying misconduct as a matter of law.

Affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Quinn, P. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H. Gillis, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Micromem TechnologiesInc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Fuda,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

        (2) The information contained inthis Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 19, 2004

|   | /s/    Joseph Fuda |
|--------|--------------------|
|   | Joseph Fuda        |