alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.7


 


English Language Summary


 


Authorization Agreement for Long Distance Commuted Fixed Telephone Services Termo de Autorização do Serviço Telefônico Fixo Comutado Modalidade Local No. 649/2011/SPB-ANATEL


 



	
Parties:

	
Telefônica Brasil S.A., as authorizee, and Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL), as grantor.


	 	 
	
Date:

	
September 5, 2011.


	 	 
	
Term:

	
Indefinite


	 	 
	
Purpose:

	
Authorization to provide long-distance Commuted Fixed Telephone Service in accordance with regulations set forth by ANATEL, for the general public.  This authorization was transferred from Telefônica Brasil S.A. to Vivo S.A. and later transferred back to Telefônica Brasil S.A. pursuant to ANATEL Act No. 6,128/2011.


	 	 
	
Area:

	
Regions I and II of the General Authorization Plan, which includes the state of Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Bahia, Sergipe, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte, Ceará, Piauí, Maranhão, Pará, Amapá, Amazonas, Roraima, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina,Paraná, Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso, Goiás, Tocantins, Rondônia, Acre and Federal District.


	 	 
	
Amount:

	
The amount owed under the grant is R$9,000.00, which was paid at the time of execution of the Authorization Agreement.


	 	 
	
Penalty:

	
Breach of the Authorization Agreement and applicable regulations to Multimedia Communication Services may result in administrative proceedings by ANATEL, the application of warning sanctions, fines, temporary suspension or revocation of licenses.
Exhibit 32.1    Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
  Report of BF Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
  ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
  the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the
  information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of operations
  as of and for the periods covered therein.

BF Enterprises, Inc.

By:      /s/ Brian P. Burns
         -----------------------------------
         Chairman of the Board, President
         and Chief Executive Officer

Date:    August 13, 2003


  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
  document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
  that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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
      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 an Amendment to the Quarterly Report of Migo Software, Inc.,
      formerly known as PowerHouse Technologies Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent Heyman, 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.




/s/ Kent
              HeymanKent
              HeymanChief
              Executive OfficerAugust 30, 2006
(logo) pwc 

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association ("Midland" or the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. 

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 25, 2015

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106

T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us
#### Javier LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72810

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 14, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed December 18, 2017

Todd Becraft, Law Office of Todd Be-craft, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner -

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Madeline Henley, Esquire, Attorney, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Jeremy M. Bylund, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and PARKER,** Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

A successful Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) “applicant must show both a *436greater than 50 percent likelihood that he will be tortured ... and that a public official would ... acquiesce in that .torture.” Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 508 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). An applicant’s testimony, “if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.” 8 C.F.R § 208.16(c)(2).

The IJ found that Lopez-Gonzalez’s testimony about his kidnapping was credible. He testified that his abductors tortured him and questioned him about “which cartel that [h]e belong[ed] to.” He also testified that his captors threatened to kill him if they saw him again. The IJ thus erred in holding that Lopez-Gonzalez would not likely be tortured again because past torture is “the principal factor on which we rely when an applicant who has previously been tortured seeks [CAT] relief[.]” Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005). In light of our recent holding that many Mexican “police officers are involved in kidnapping ... or acting directly on behalf of[ ] organized crime and drug traffickers,” Madrigal, 716 F.3d at 507 (quotation marks omitted), Lopez-Gonzalez has sufficiently “show[n] that public officials demonstrate^] ‘willful blindness’ to [his] torture[.]” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1196 (9th Cir. 2003). Willful blindness satisfies the CAT requirement of government acquiescence. Id.

GRANTED.

***

 xiiis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-9899.

#### Davis *v.*Akin’s et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 20, 2012

Decided December 20, 2012

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Nos. 12

‐ 2794 & 12

‐ 2796

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

ANTHONY CARRIOLA,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeals from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

Nos. 12

‐ CR

‐ 12

‐ WMC

‐ 01 &

12

‐ CR

‐ WMC

‐ 57

‐ 01

William M. Conley,

Chief Judge

.

ORDER

Anthony Carriola was charged in the Western District of Wisconsin with obstructing

commerce by robbing a pharmacy, see 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and brandishing a firearm during

that crime, see id. § 924(c). He also was charged in the Southern District of Indiana with

obstructing commerce by robbing another drugstore a month before the Wisconsin robbery.

Carriola brandished a handgun during the Indiana holdup as well, and in both robberies he

departed with morphine after physically assaulting a pharmacist. After consenting to the

transfer of his Indiana case to Wisconsin, see F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 20(a), Carriola pleaded guilty

to all three crimes. On the § 1951 counts the district court sentenced him below the

guidelines imprisonment range to a total of 60 months. The court imposed a consecutive

term of 84 months on the gun count, the statutory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1Nos. 12

‐ 2794 & 12

‐ 2796 Page 2

Carriola filed a notice of appeal from each prosecution, but his appointed lawyer

asserts that the appeals are frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders v. California

, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Carriola has not responded to his lawyer’s submission. See C IR

. R. 51(b)

. He

did tell counsel not to challenge his guilty pleas, and thus the lawyer properly omits from

his Anders brief any discussion about the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of Carriola ʹ s

guilty pleas. See United States v. Konczak

, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012) ; United States v.

Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel has not identified any basis to challenge the district court’s application of

the sentencing guidelines, which the court adopted from the presentence report without

objection. Counsel does question whether Carriola could challenge his overall prison term

as unreasonably high, but the total sentence is below the guidelines range and presumed

reasonable. See United States v. Klug

, 670 F.3d 797, 800 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v.

Martinez

, 650 F.3d 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2011). Counsel has not identified any ground to rebut

this presumption, nor can we. In determining Carriola’s sentence, the district court

evaluated the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Carriola’s difficult childhood,

his addiction to opiates, and the violent nature of the robberies. Thus a reasonableness

challenge would be frivolous.

We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeals.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         605,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,227,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                    83,275
<INVENTORY>                                  1,572,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,410,165
<PP&E>                                       2,181,202
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,353,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,245,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          978,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       507,048
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,708,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,245,767
<SALES>                                      1,978,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,993,648
<CGS>                                          948,734
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  948,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               714,914
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                326,799
<INCOME-TAX>                                   136,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            190,499
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   190,499
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.6

                            Harken Energy Corporation

                          Nominee Holder Certification

     The undersigned, a bank, broker, trustee, depositary or other nominee of
rights (the "Rights") to purchase shares of common stock ("Common Stock") of
Harken Energy Corporation (the "Company") pursuant to the Rights Offering
described and provided for in the Company's prospectus dated __________________,
2002, (the "Prospectus"), hereby certifies to the Company and to American Stock
Transfer & Trust Company, as Subscription Agent for such rights offering, that
(1) the undersigned has exercised, on behalf of the beneficial owners thereof
(which may include the undersigned), the number of Rights specified below
pursuant to the subscription right (as described in the Prospectus) on behalf of
beneficial owners of Rights (without identifying any such beneficial owner), and
(2) each such beneficial owner's subscription right has been exercised in full:

     Number of Shares Owned (or Issuable
  upon Conversion of Other Securities Owned)          Right Exercised Pursuant
              on the Record Date                        to Subscription Right
----------------------------------------------      ----------------------------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Provide the following information if applicable:

________________________________________________
Depository Trust company ("DTC")

[PARTICIPANT]

By:_____________________________________________
   Name:
   Title:

________________________________________________
DTC Subscription Confirmation Number(s)

                                        1
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-8132 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-127-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 1.5 $ 127.50 $0 $ 127.50 959 $122,272.50

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $122,273

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Repair 84.0 $7,140.00 $0 $7,140.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
No. 11-1479.

#### KeyCorp et al. *v.*Sollitt.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            229,261
<SECURITIES>                                            0                                  
<RECEIVABLES>                                     289,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                       108,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  774,182
<PP&E>                                          5,491,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                    494,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,195,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,759,871
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           21,019
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,195,130
<SALES>                                         1,502,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,502,425
<CGS>                                             781,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   5,517,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,042,339
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,061,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,057,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,057,378)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,057,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.61)
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 24, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00399

- CV

CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION

,

Appellant

v.

Sydney BERRA , Individually an d as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lee Berra, and on

behalf of his surviving parents, Philip Berra and Ellen Berra,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI01530

The Honorable Monique Diaz , Jud ge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension is granted. We order the appellant’s brief

due October 19, 2020.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of September, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1


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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Windswept Environmental
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Michael O'Reilly, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Charles L. Kelly, Jr., 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:

             (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.

                                              /s/ Michael O'Reilly
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Michael O'Reilly
                                           President and
                                           Chief Executive Officer

                                              /s/ Charles L. Kelly, Jr.
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Charles L. Kelly, Jr.
                                           Chief Financial Officer



                                           Dated: November 12, 2004