alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.4 - Administrative Report of the Trust


                              Administrative Report
                                       for
            Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2004-008 (the "Trust")

                           Payment Date April 15, 2005
                             CUSIP Number 41659FAG9

(i)   the amount received by the Indenture Trustee from Hartford Life Insurance
      Company ("Hartford Life") as of the payment date in respect of the
      principal, interest and premium, if any, on Funding Agreement No. 404008
      (the "Funding Agreement") issued by Hartford Life Insurance Company
      ("Hartford Life").

               --------------- ---------------------------------
               Interest:       $ 44,989.90
               --------------- ---------------------------------
               Principal:      $ 0.00
               --------------- ---------------------------------

(ii)  the amount of payment on such Payment Date to holders allocable to
      principal and interest on the notes of the Trust.

               --------------- ---------------------------------
               Interest:       $ 44,989.90
               --------------- ---------------------------------
               Principal:      $ 0.00
               --------------- ---------------------------------

(iii) the aggregate stated principal amount of the Funding Agreement, the
      current interest rate or rates thereon at the close of business on such
      Payment Date, and the current rating assigned to the Funding Agreement.

       ------------------------------- ---------------------------------
       Aggregate Principal Amount:     $ 1,773,015.00
       ------------------------------- ---------------------------------
       Interest Rate:                  5.25%
       ------------------------------- ---------------------------------

                                    Ratings:
                                           Moody's Investor Services: Aa3
                                           Standard & Poors' Rating Service: AA-

(iv)  the aggregate principal balance of the notes of the Trust at the close of
      business on such Payment Date and the current rating assigned to such
      notes.

                                    Aggregate Principal Amount: $1,773,000.00
                                    Ratings:
                                           Moody's Investor Services: Aa3
                                           Standard & Poors' Rating Service: AA-


AMACAR Pacific Corp., as administrator of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust
2004-008

By:  /s/  Evelyn Echevarria
     --------------------------------------
     Name:  Evelyn Echevarria
     Title:  Vice President
NUMBER 13-22-00410-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

ADRIANA SANCHEZ, Appellant,

v.

ROGERIO RODRIGUEZ AND

ELEAZAR RODRIGUEZ, Appellees.

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Appellant Adriana Sanchez filed a restricted appeal from an order dismissing her 

suit against appellees Rogerio and Eleazar Rodriguez for want of prosecution. Sanchez 

has since filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, informing the Court that the parties have 
2

settled the underlying dispute and that she wishes for the appeal to be dismissed.

1

Dismissing the appeal would not prevent appellees from seeking any relief to which 

they would otherwise be entitled; therefore, the Court grants Sanchez’s motion and 

dismisses the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, 

each party will bear their own costs. See id. R. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the appeal at 

Sanchez’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

25th day of May, 2023.

1 Sanchez’s motion is mistitled as “Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss.”
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Petition for exemption/rule making.
Exhibit 11. Statement re computation of per share earnings
(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
(unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Three Months Ended,
                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                       March 31, 2004                    March 31, 2003
                               -----------------------------      ------------------------------
                                          Weighted      Per                  Weighted      Per
                                           Average     Share                 Average      Share
                               Income      Shares     Amount      Income      Shares     Amount
                               ------      ------     ------      ------      ------     -------
<S>                            <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Basic Earnings per
   Common Share
Income available to
   common shareholders         $3,986      12,767      $0.31      $3,356      9,829      $  0.34
                                                       =====                             =======

Effect of Dilutive Shares
Options issued                     --         261                     --        139
                               ------      ------                 ------      -----
Diluted Earnings per
   Common Share                $3,986      13,028      $0.31      $3,356      9,968      $  0.34
                               ======      ======      =====      ======      =====      =======
</TABLE>
# 03-71967 Valdiva-Padilla    

Reinhardt, Thompson, Berzon, CJJ

301.52692
TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKS

PSP 601−5

TEMPORARY REVISION NO. 5−250

INSERT IN SECTION 5−10−30

FACING PAGE 24

REASON FOR ISSUE: To introduce a visual check of the engine support beam.ACTION: Add the task that follows to the list of Chapter 53 checks:

NOTE: Record the incorporation of this Temporary Revision on the yellow RECORD OF TEMPORARY 

and the LIST OF EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY REVISIONS sheets at the front of this publication
TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKS

PSP 601−5

MAINTENANCE

MANUAL − CH. 5

REFERENCE

ZONE A

CHECK INTERVAL CHAPTER 53 CHECKS DESCRIPTION

53−10−00−198* Engine Support Beam.

Visual Check. 7800 T

(Ref. PSP 612, Part 9, VC−53−10−81) LANDINGS

1100 R

LANDINGS

PHASE-IN: For aircraft with 7300 Landings or less at the date

of TR 5-250 (May 31/2011), do this check no laterthan 7800 Landings.For aircraft with more than 7300 Landings butless than 8550 landings at the date of TR 5-250(May 31/2011), do this check within 500 Landingsor by Dec 31/2013 whichever occurs first.For aircraft with 8550 Landings or more at thedate of TR 5-250 (dated May 31/2011), do thischeck within 250 Landings or by Dec 31/2013whichever occurs first.

310311312

311−B
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 23 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES DODSON VIEFHAUS, JR.,

also known as Thorsson,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-5076

(D.C. No. 97-CR-5-BU)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

James D. Viefhaus appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

revocation of a detention order entered by the magistrate judge. Our review of

the district court’s ruling is plenary as to questions of law, giving due deference

to the court’s factual findings. See United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475,

1488-89 (10th Cir. 1996). Our jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see

19 U.S.C. § 3145(c). 

Defendant stands charged in the Northern District of Oklahoma of

1) conspiracy to make a bomb threat and to possess a pipe bomb; 2) willfully

making a bomb threat; and 3) possessing a nonregistered destructive device,

namely the components of a pipe bomb. After a hearing, the magistrate judge

ordered defendant detained, concluding that while he was not a flight risk, he was

a danger to the community and, further, that no condition or combination of

conditions would assure the community’s safety. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). 

Defendant moved to reopen the hearing, seeking revocation of the detention

order. After a hearing, the district court denied defendant’s motion, affirming the

ruling of the magistrate judge. 

On appeal, defendant challenges the magistrate judge’s factual finding that

he is a danger to community, based on defendant’s suppositions with regard to

evidence obtained from a search of defendant’s residence. Defendant also

contends that he should be released on bond because he has no previous criminal
-3-

record and in light of his offered conditions of release. He points to the fact that

a co-defendant was ordered released on bail under certain conditions. 

We have independently reviewed the record on appeal in light of the

applicable law. We are convinced that the district court’s factual findings were

proper. Further, based on these findings, we agree with the district court that no

condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the

community. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s detention order is

proper. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 41 0

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ADRIANA SANCHEZ

, Appellant

,

v

.

ROGERIO RODRIGUEZ AND

ELEAZAR RODRIGUEZ

, Appellee s

.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Cameron C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavide s

, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

A ppellant Adriana Sanchez filed a restricted appeal from an order dismissing her

suit against appellees Rogerio and Eleazar Rodriguez for want of prosecution. Sanchez

ha s since filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, informing the Court that the parties have2

settled the underlying dispute and that s he wish es for the appeal to be dismissed

. 1

Dismissing the appeal would not prevent appellees from seeking a n y relief to which

they would otherwise be entitled; therefore, t he Court grants Sanchez’s motion and

dismisses the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)( 1 ). Pursuant to the parties’ agreement

,

each party will b ear their own costs

. See id. R. 42.1(d)

. H aving dismissed the appeal at

Sanchez’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

25th day of May , 202 3

.

1 Sanchez’s motion is mistitled as “Appellee ’s Motion to Dismiss.”
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18370-18371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9171]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL09-46-000; QF09-321-001]


East Bay Municipal Utility District; Notice of Filing

April 15, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 3, 2009, East Bay Municipal Utility 
District (EBMUD) filed a petition for declaratory order, requesting a 
limited waiver of the filing requirement for its qualifying 
congeneration facility, for the period of March 17, 2006 to April 3, 
2009, pursuant to section 292.203(b)(2) of the

[[Page 18371]]

Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 292.203(b)(2).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#377172657478595b5e595264424747584543775152455419505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="de989b8c9d91b0b2b7b0bb8dabaeaeb1acaa9eb8bbacbdf0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 30, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9171 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.2

     I, Patrick E. Delaney, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ION Networks, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements
     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 officers 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:


     a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared.

     b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
          reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

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

     a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonable likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: August 9, 2005


/s/ Patrick E. Delaney
----------------------
Patrick E. Delaney
Chief Financial Officer

                                       19
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 thisAmendment No. 1 to theannual report of China Housing &
Land Development, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2008as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the Report),the undersigned officer of the Company
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
knowledge:





i.       
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





ii.       
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





A signed original of this written
statement has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the
SEC or our staff upon request.








/s/ Feng
Xiaohong


Feng Xiaohong


Chief Executive
Officer


April 13, 2009








This Certification of Chief Executive
Officer pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is not “filed”for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by
applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6664**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. CARROLL EDGAR BLEVINS , Defendant

– Appell ant . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:0 6

- cr - 000 16

- jpj

- 1 ; 1:08

- cv - 80080

- jpj

- mfu )

Submitted : September 29 , 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by unpublished per curiam opinion
. Carroll Edgar Blevins , Appellant Pro Se
. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carroll Edgar Blevins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certi ficate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

re asonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relie f on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Blevins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification ofQuarterly Report**

I, Caroline M.Loewy, Chief Financial Officer of Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.1350 that:

a.                 the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

b.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 9, 2007 | By:    | /s/ CAROLINE  M. LOEWY                      |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Caroline M. Loewy *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
bonz_ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1







 


 


Letter Agreement with Pen-Mun Foo


 


 



 





 


 


 


October 25, 2011


 


I, Peng Mun Foo, hereby accept my position with Bonanza Goldfields Corporation as Interim CFO.


 


As Interim CFO, I understand my duty to assist Bonanza Goldfields in:


 


1) Completing Quarterly (10Q) and Yearly (10K) filings.


 


2) Preparing financial metrics and comparisons used in marketing Bonanza and raising capital.


 


The company will give me up to $2500 USD monthly in expense reimbursement incurred by my role with the Company. I will also receive quarterly 1,000,000 shares of common stock of Bonanza Goldfields Corporation.


 


The duration for this position will be 3 months, and renewable each quarter by mutual agreement.


 


I’m looking forward to working with the Bonanza Goldfields Corporation management team.


 


Sincerely,


 


Peng Mun Foo, CFA
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 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, Kevin Bauer, certify, 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 of Exar Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 28, 2009 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Exar Corporation.

Date: August 7, 2009



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/    Kevin Bauer                          
|Kevin Bauer                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)