alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPAR Group, Inc.


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


              Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the three month period
ended June 30, 2004 (this "report"), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the "registrant"), the
undersigned hereby certifies that, to his 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 registrant.




                                /s/ Charles Cimitile
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Charles Cimitile
                                Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

                                August 23, 2004


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to SPAR Group,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by SPAR Group,  Inc.,  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                      Ex-4
EX-35 (d)
(logo) LLS Litton Loan Servicing

4828 Loop Central Drive
Houston TX 77081
Telephone 713-966-8966
Fax 713-218-4595
www.littonloan.com



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

GSAMP 2006-HE7


The undersigned officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP provides the Annual
Statement as to Compliance as required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
for the above referenced security and certifies that (i) a review of the
activities of the Servicer during such preceding calendar year (or such shorter
period in the case of the first such report) and of performance under this
Agreement has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under this Agreement in all material respects for 2006, except as disclosed
below:

Reconciliations for Asset-Backed Securities Related Bank Account -
1122(d)(2)(vii)(D)

Our investor bank account reconciliations included certain reconciling items
that were not resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification
on eleven of sixty-three investor bank account reconciliations selected for
testing. The sum of the reconciling items for those eleven reconciliations was
$216,950.

Adjustments to Interest Rates for Pool Assets With Variable Rates -
1122(d)(4)(ix)

Our testing of sixty-five adjustable rate mortgages revealed two instances where
certain adjustable rate mortgages for which the interest rate reset in the
servicing system did not agree to interest rates in the appropriate source index
per the borrower's note documents. These were the result of incorrect
information transferring from the prior servicer. Additionally, the same
sixty-five mortgages selected for testing included one instance where the
adjustable rate mortgage payment change date in the servicing system did not
agree to the loan documents.


Date: February 27, 2007



/s/ Elizabeth Folk
Elizabeth Folk
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Litton Loan Servicing LP
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00485-CR

Weldon Lee MCMILLIAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 19th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-44-C1

Honorable Ralph T. Strother, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2014

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Weldon Lee McMillian entered an open plea of guilty to felony driving while intoxicated. 

He waived a jury and punishment was tried to the court. McMillian pled true to the enhancement 

paragraphs in the indictment and, after a hearing, the trial court sentenced McMillian to forty-five 

years in prison. McMillian timely appealed. 

McMillian’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in 

which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without 

merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. 
04-13-00485-CR

State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1969). Counsel informed McMillian of his right to file a pro se brief and provided him copies 

of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record. McMillian filed a pro se brief in 

which he contends the indictment contained clerical errors and that at least one of the convictions 

alleged for enhancement purposes never occurred. 

After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and McMillian’s pro se brief, we find no 

reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by 

counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1996, no pet.).1

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should McMillian wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this 

opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this 

court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 

68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

- 2 -
#### Harry Walter McCUTCHEON, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 23752.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1966.

Sam R. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., T. B. Wright, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.

Before JONES, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks a reversal of an order denying his application for habeas corpus relief from a state court conviction and sentence. The district court correctly held that no violation of a Federally protected right was shown. The order of the district court is

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v*. Theodore Randell, Appellant.

Submitted November 24, 1943;

decided January 13, 1944.

*804
      *Robert Mitchell*for appellant.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Richard G. Denser*and *Stanley H. Fuld*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed,- no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Julius J. Frank, Resp’t, v. Edward A. Davis, App’lt.

*Julius J. Frank,*for resp’t; *Albert Cardozo,*for app’It.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 207.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Brian Cole, Chief Financial Officer of Play LA Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Play LA Inc. for the year ended  December  31, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Play LA Inc.





Dated:  October 16, 2012




/s/ Brian Cole





Brian Cole





Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
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 Saratoga Investment Corp. (the
Company) for the annual period ended February 28, 2018, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christian L. Oberbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Henri J.
Steenkamp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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.

Date: May 14, 2018



/s/ CHRISTIAN L. OBERBECKChristian L. OberbeckChief Executive Officer




/s/ HENRI J. STEENKAMPHenri J. SteenkampChief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer
United States

Environmental Protection Agency 

Acid Rain Program

OMB No. 2060-0258

 Approval expires 11/30/2012

Notification For Distribution Of

Proceeds From EPA Auctions

Step 1

Provide your Authorized Account Representative (AAR) or Alternate AAR identification:

Name AAR ID#

(please print) (or Alternate)

Phone # Plant Name and ORIS Code

EPA will send one payment for each plant that you represent for the proceeds from the auctions of allowances. 

Proceeds payments will be distributed no later than 90 days following the conclusion of the auction. If you are 

the AAR, or alternate AAR, for multiple plants and the payments are to be made to the same company, either 

submit a separate form for each plant or attach a list of the plants and ORIS codes. A separate form must be 

submitted for each plant or list of plants where the payment is made to a different company. You do not need to 

complete this form for plants that did not have any allowances withheld for the auctions and will not receive 

proceeds. As the AAR, or alternate AAR, you are responsible for designating to whom proceeds payments 

should be made. All payments will be wire transferred to the bank account on record with the EPA Las 

Vegas Financial Management Center (call 702-798-2492 to change your company’s bank account 

information).

Step 2

The proceeds payment should be endorsed to: 

Company Name

Taxpayer ID. No. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

Step 3

I understand that EPA will continue to make the payments as indicated above until I give new written 

instructions to EPA.

Authorized by ______________________________________________ Date _____________ AAR or Alternate AAR

Send this form to one of the following addresses: 

for regular or certified mail:

U.S. EPA

Clean Air Markets Division (6204J) 

Attention: Kenon Smith

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

for overnight mail:

U.S. EPA

Clean Air Markets Division (6204J)

Attention: Kenon Smith

1310 L Street, NW 

Room 254A 

Washington, DC 20005 

EPA Form 7610-11 (Revised 12-2009)
DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts

Chambers Works

Deepwater, NJ 08023

June xx, 2015

Director, Chemical Control Division

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Re: EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012

DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

May 2015 Sample Data

Dear Chemical Control Division:

Attached please find summaries of PFOA analytical results for the DuPont Chambers Works 

weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A in May 2015. 

In accordance with the current site NJPDES permit (NJ0005100, effective September 2011), 

these results are provided to NJDEP on a monthly basis via electronic discharge monitoring 

reports. The enclosures include two paper and two electronic copies of the analytical results 

from this monitoring period.

Sincerely, 

Amutha Jeyarajasingam

Area Manager-Secure Environmental Treatment

DuPont Chambers Works

AJ/clc

Enclosures
Copy to:

Document Control Office

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Ms. Heather Genievich (cover letter only)

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting

Mail Code 401-02B

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 420

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420
#### Hector CAMARENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56233

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Hector Camarena, Pro Se

U.S. Attorney CV, Esquire, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: 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 **

Hector Camarena appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment following the dismissal of his action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,*362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Camarena’s motion for relief from the judgment because Camare-na did not identify any grounds for such relief from the judgment. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); *United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.,*555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth grounds for relief).

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 publi- ' cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Hank ZABALA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike HALEY, Sheriff of Washoe County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16859

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017*

Filed July 17, 2017

Hank Zabala, Pro Se

Herbert Kaplan, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, Reno, NY, for Defendants-Appel-lees

Before: 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 **

Former detainee Hank- Zabala appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his placement in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Zabala’s claims against Sheriff Haley because Zabala failed' to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sheriff Haley personally participated in the alleged constitutional viola*676tions or whether there was a sufficient causal connection between Sheriff Haley’s conduct and the alleged constitutional violations. *See Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for establishing supervisory liability under § 1983).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Zabala’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants because Zabala failed to amend his notice of appeal or file a separate notice of appeal. *See Whitaker v. Garcetti,*486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

We do not consider 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 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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

(1) the annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Angstrom Technologies Corp. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Angstrom Technologies Corp.

Dated April 1, 2008.

|/s/
      Alpha Pang                                       | 
|---------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Alpha Pang                                                 | 
|President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director | 
|(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer  | 
|and Principal Accounting Officer)                          | 

---
Exhibit 32








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










I, Victor Salerno, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc. for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of American Wagering, Inc..





By:          /s/  Victor Salerno

Name:     Victor Salerno

Title:         Chief Executive Officer

Date:         September 12, 2003



I, Timothy F. Lockinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc. for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of American Wagering, Inc.






/s/ Timothy F. Lockinger
#### Sarah ALHASSID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d.b.a. Champion Mortgage, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15944

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 23, 2017)

Maury L. Udell, Beighley Myrick Udell & Lynne, PA, Miami, FL,' for Plaintiff-Appellant

Christopher Stephen Carver, Marissa X. Kaliman, Akerman, LLP, Miami, FL, Michael J. Larson, Nancy M. Wallace, Aker-man, LLP, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before HULL, MARCUS and CLEVENGER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation,

PER CURIAM:

Sarah Alhassid appeals the dismissal of her complaint against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”), in which she alleged that Nationstar violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.72(9) (“FCCPA”), by sending her threatening, false letters regarding the flood insurance requirement in her mortgage contract. In its dismissal of the complaint, the district court determined that the letters did not constitute “debt collection” for purposes of the FDCPA or FCCPA. In so holding, the district court reasoned that the letters were not sent to induce payment because they did not reference a debt, demand payment, discuss a balance due on the underlying mortgage, or discuss ways to settle that balance. The court also found that the letters were sent in order to comply with a federal regulation and only warned of the consequence of not meeting the flood insurance requirement.

On appeal, Alhassid argues that the district court failed to accept as true all allegations in the complaint and incorrectly determined that the letters were not related to a debt collection. She also claims that the court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice without first giving her an opportunity to amend the complaint, and by converting Nationstar’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment without notifying the parties. After careful review of the briefs and record, and after hearing oral argument on the case, we can discern no reversible error on the part of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
15410

#### STAFFORD v. STAFFORD *ET AL.*

(20 S. E. (2d), 217)

*2February, 1942.

*6May 12, 1942.

*Mr. Joe P. Lane*of Dillon, counsel for appellants,

*Mr. W. C. Moore*of Dillon, counsel for respondent,

The opinion of the Court ■ was delivered by

Mr. Associate Justice Stukes :

The circuit decree from which this appeal was taken is affirmed and adopted as the judgment of this Court. It will be reported. There are ample sustaining authorities; among ■them are: *Cannon v. Cannon,*135 S. C., 183, 133 S. E., 556; and *Kirkham v. First Nat. Bank,*149 S. C., 545, 147 S. E., 648.

The exceptions question (1) the sufficiency of the factual showing of reasonable necessity for, or the expediency of, the sale of the property; (2) that the sales price is the full value, and (3) the safeguarding of the fund for the life tenants and remaindermen.

However, careful consideration of the testimony and Master’s report discloses no reasonable foundation for the criticisms. It is noted that the provisions for the preservation and application of the substituted fund in accord with the terms of the deed are very similar to the requirements made by this Court in *Cannon v. Cannon, supra.*

The exceptions are overruled and the judgment affirmed.

Mr. Ci-iiEE Justice Bonham and Messrs. Associate Justices Baker and Fisitburne concur.

Circuit Judge L. D. Fide, Acting Associate Justice, disqualified.
#### GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & SAN ANTONIO R’Y. vs. WILLIAMS.

Appeal from Bexar county.

*Practice in this Court.*— It is a rule rigidly enforced in this court that a statement of facts filed after adjournment _of court will not be considered, fot^ any purpose in the absence of an order of court allowing ten days_hi_which to file it. When therefore, there are no assignments of error winch can be considered without a statement of facts, it remains only for the court to affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

Willie, Chief Justice.