alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Trina Solar Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jifan Gao, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 12, 2007



|       |  |                                     
|------ |  | ------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Jifan Gao                       
|Name:  |  | Jifan Gao                           
|Title: |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

60 Wall Street, 

New York, NY 10005

 

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent for the Myrtle Beach Marriott Resort & Spa Loan Combination (in such capacities, “Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014  (the “reporting period”):

 

 

(a)      A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and

 

(b)     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 17, 2015

 

 

\s\ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

 

To:  Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

 

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2014 by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, Depositor, KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, Operating Advisor for COMM 2014-UBS6 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, relating to the Myrtle Beach Marriott Resort & Spa Loan Combination, a pari passu portion of which is included in the Series COMM 2014-CCRE20 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

 

 

To:  Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

 

Schedule B

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

 

Not Applicable
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 0929 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 218 -AD
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7698
BARRY L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN HAWKINS, Captain/Security; SERGEANT WYNN, Sergeant/Security; OFFICER TALLEY, Officer/Security, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-567-2-RGD) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Barry L. Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeHarris v. Hawkins , No. CA-05-567-2-RGD (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Please be advised that after the 3/25/2016 version of the draft NPRM was sent to OMB, on 4/13/2016

EPA submitted the attached revised version that con tained technical corrections to better reflect EPA’ s intended meaning for certain passages in the preamb le.
EXHIBIT 32   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 of Disability Access Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Chin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 results of the operation of the Company.  By:/s/ Peter Chin Peter Chin Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting, Executive and Financial Officer) March 21, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 244 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 244

  To commend and congratulate the University of Kentucky on its men's 
    basketball team winning its sixth National Collegiate Athletic 
                       Association championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 16, 1996

   Mr. Ford (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To commend and congratulate the University of Kentucky on its men's 
    basketball team winning its sixth National Collegiate Athletic 
                       Association championship.

Whereas the University of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team defeated 
        Syracuse University's team on April 1, 1996, in East Rutherford, New 
        Jersey, to win its sixth National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 
        championship;
Whereas the senior members of this team, during their four-year varsity careers, 
        were also NCAA semi-finalists and three-time champions of the 
        Southeastern Conference;
Whereas Coach Rick Pitino, his staff, and his players displayed outstanding 
        dedication, teamwork, unselfishness, and sportsmanship throughout the 
        course of the season in achieving collegiate basketball's highest honor, 
        earning for themselves the nickname ``The Untouchables''; and
Whereas Coach Pitino and the Wildcats have brought pride and honor to the 
        Commonwealth of Kentucky, which is rightly known as the basketball 
        capital of the world: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate commends and congratulates the University 
of Kentucky on its outstanding accomplishment.
    Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this 
resolution to the president of the University of Kentucky.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ms. Shawnte Anne LEVY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Mr. Gregg L. Hershberger, Commissioner; Mr. Frank B. Bishop, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7160

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

Shawnte Anne Levy, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen, Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, River-dale, Maryland; Dorianne Avery Meloy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in’ this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shawnte Anne Levy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible *158error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Levy v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,*No. 8:14-cv-03678-TDC (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2017). We deny Levy’s motion for emergency physical examination and surgical treatment. 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 99.2**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of LoralSpace & Communications Ltd. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Townsend,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ RICHARD J. TOWNSEND      Richard J. Townsend     *Executive Vice President* *and Chief Financial Officer*
May 15, 2003
#### Salah Ahmed Abdelhafeih TAHA, a/k/a Salah Abdelhafeih Taha, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1666

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 22, 2018

Decided: February 14, 2018

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Principal Deputy, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C, for Respondent.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Salah Abdelhafeih Taha, a native of Sudan and a citizen of Spain who entered the United States in March 2000 under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)¡ seeks review of an Order'of Removal issued on April 26, 2017, by the Department of Homeland Security. Taha contends that his due process rights were violated because his most recent application for, adjustment of status *163was denied by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) based in part on a removal order issued in 2013 that was never served on Taha. Por the reasons that follow, we dismiss the petition for review.

To participate in the VWP, an alien must agree to waive any right to (1) administrative or judicial review of an immigration officer’s determination as to admissibility; and (2) “contest, other than on the basis of an application for asylum, any action for removal of the alien” after admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b) (2012). Pursuant to the waiver, aliens who are admitted under the VWP and fail'to comply with its terms are not entitled to proceedings before an Immigration Judge unless they apply for asylum, which Taha did not. Our review discloses that Taha concedes that he entered the United States under the VWP and remained here beyond the authorized 90-day period, and he does not contest that he waived his right to contest removal. Taha could and did apply for adjustment of status, in December 2003 and November 2014. However, he could not, as a result of his VWP waiver, dispute the denial of his adjustment of status application as a defense to removal. *See Gjerjaj v. Holder,*691 F.3d 288, 293 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that a VWP participant may not contest removal on the basis of an adjustment of status application filed after the participant overstays the 90-day period of authorized stay).

Accordingly, we find that we are without jurisdiction to review' Taha’s due process challenge to the denial of his application for adjustment of status, which is not part of the instant 2017 Order of Removal and is being handled separately through US-CIS. We therefore dismiss the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 11

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 8, 1997

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of

remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized

3 to be used from 8 o’clock ante meridiem until 3 o’clock

4 post meridiem on May 8, 1997, for a ceremony as part

5 of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of vic6 tims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the cere7 mony shall be carried out in accordance with such condi8 tions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

Passed the House of Representatives March 21,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

C ALVIN LARUE , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. No.: N22C-07- 092 FJJ v. ) ) P ERMANENT G ENERAL ) I NSURANCE COMPANY , ) ) Defendant.

Order Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss DENIED.

Having considered Defendant Permanent General Insurance Company (“Permanent”) ’s

Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff Calvin LaRue ’s Response, it appears to the Court that:

1. Mr. LaRue filed a first party insurance action against Permanent, seeking no fault and uninsured motorist coverage for a car accident that occurred on December 1, 2020.

Permanent has moved to dismiss the claim on the ground s that Mr. LaRue was not an

insured at the time of the accident

. 2. Permanent’s motion to dismiss is premised upon its contention that Mr. LaRue ’s automobile insurance policy with Permanent did not take effect unt il one day after Mr.

LaRue ’s accident. According to Permanent, the record as it stands is adequate to grant dismissal because the policy declaration sheet shows an effective date of December 2 , 2020. Permanent did not submit any other materials or affidavits with its motion.

3. In M r. LaRue ’s response to the motion, he attached a banking sheet indicating a payment was made to Permanent on November 28, 2020.4. At this point in time, the parties have not engaged in discovery to determine: (1) whether the November 28 payment was for the Permanent policy in question ; (2) when Permanent received the payment; and (3) when the policy should have become effective given the date of payment.

5. When matters outside the pleadings are included with the moving papers on a motion to dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), the m otion is considered to be a motion for summary judgment. 1

6. Summary judgment is not appropriate when the Court does not have sufficient facts in the record to enable it to apply the law to the facts before it. 2

7. Against this background, the Court finds summary judgment to be premature at this stage in the proceedings. The record, as it stands, is undeveloped and insuff icient to answer the questions presented above. Therefore, Permanent’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.

8. The Court will permit a follow

- up motion for summary judgment after the parties establish a more complete record. At that time, the Court will at tempt to answer the above questions and address any other issues developed through discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22 nd day of November, 2022

/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones , Jr. , Judge

cc: Original to the Prothonotary Kenneth M. Roseman, Esquire Periann Doko, Esquire

1 See Pepper Reinholz Architects, Inc v. Owen Manor, L.P., 2006 WL 2338048, at *1 ( Del. Super. June 15, 2006). 2 See Savor v. FMR Corp ., 2003 WL 21054394, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 3, 2003).
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 on Form 10-Q of
Gensym Corporation. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Lowell B. Hawkinson, Chairman of the Board of
Directors, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                                                           
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2004 |  | /s/    LOWELL B. HAWKINSON                                                                
|                    |  | Lowell B. Hawkinson Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, Chief Executive Officer
H. Con. Res. 138 Agreed to July 31, 1997

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Concurrent Resolution

To correct technical errors in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2014.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2014), to provide

for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(2) and (d) of section

105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998,

the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following

corrections:

(1) In the amendment proposed to be added by section

1085(c), strike ‘‘section 407(d)’’ and insert ‘‘paragraph (4) or

(7) of section 407(d)’’.

(2) Strike subparagraph (B) of section 1031(e)(2) and insert

the following:

‘‘(B) TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS PAID FOR TICKETS PURCHASED BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 1997.—The amendments made

by subsection (c) shall not apply to amounts paid before

October 1, 1997; except that—

‘‘(i) the amendment made to section 4261(c) of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply to

amounts paid more than 7 days after the date of the

enactment of this Act for transportation beginning on

or after October 1, 1997, and

‘‘(ii) the amendment made to section 4263(c) of

such Code shall apply to the extent related to taxes
H. Con. Res. 138—2

imposed under the amendment made to such section

4261(c) on the amounts described in clause (i).’’.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
Exhibit 10.6

                                 First Amendment
                                       to
                              Employment Agreement

     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement is made as of June 1, 2002,
and is by and between Vista Exploration Corporation., a Colorado corporation
("Employer"), and Charles A. Ross, Sr., a resident of the State of Kansas
("Employee"). For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally
bound, agree as follows:

     1. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement between Employer and Employee
dated as of April 1, 2002 (the "Agreement"), shall be amended and restated,
effective as of April 1, 2002, as follows:

     Professional Efforts. Employee shall devote such professional time and
     attention to the performance of his obligations under this Agreement as are
     reasonably required by Employer, and shall at all times perform all of his
     obligations hereunder to the best of his ability, experience and talent.

     2. Section 4 of the Agreement shall be amended and restated, effective as
of April 1, 2002, as follows:

     Compensation. In consideration for his services, Employer shall pay
     Employee a base salary at the rate of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) per
     annum. Employee's salary hereunder shall be payable in bi-monthly
     installments, or on such other payment schedule as is used to pay similarly
     situated employees of Employer. Employee shall be eligible for annual
     increases in base salary as determined by the Board of Directors of
     Employer in its sole discretion based upon Employee's performance and the
     financial performance of Employer. Employee agrees to defer the receipt of
     his salary for a period of (i) up to six (6) months; (ii) the Employer has
     received an additional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) in debt or
     equity capital infusion; (iii) the Employer starts receiving revenue from
     operations; or (iv) there is a change of control requiring an 8-K filing,
     whichever first occurs.

     3. Except as expressly set forth in this First Amendment, the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect, enforceable in accordance with its terms.

EMPLOYEE:

/s/ Charles A. Ross, Sr.
-------------------------
Charles A. Ross, Sr.


EMPLOYER:

Vista Exploration Corporation

/s/ Charles A. Ross, Sr.
------------------------
By: Charles A. Ross, President