alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned, who is carrying out the functions of chief executive officer for Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P. (the Partnership) pursuant to an Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement, dated March 27, 2014, among Brookfield Asset Management Inc., the Partnership, Brookfield Infrastructure L.P. and others, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (i) the annual report of the Partnership on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.  Dated: February 29, 2016   /s/   Samuel PollockSamuel   PollockCEO,   Brookfield Infrastructure Group L.P.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-11864

 

 

NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS6 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
■ Ernst & Youngllp
            ■
      Phone:
      (612) 343-1000220 South Sixth Street,
      Ste 1400
            www.ey.comMinneapolis, MN
      55402-4509















Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board
of Directors


U.S. Bank
National Association





We have
examined management’sassertion,
included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank
National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC’s Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset
Backed Securitiesplatform (the
Platform)as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2007, except forservicing criteria
1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)–(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)–(iv), and
1122(d)(4)(iv)–(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by
this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those
servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s
assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on
our examination.





Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by 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 less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, 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 determine whether
errors may have occurred either 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 for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. 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 the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.










/s/
Ernst & Young
LLP







February
12, 2008








0802-0910920-3
            A member
      firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
COUNTRY CLUB OF MIAMI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Naidima GRACIA, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-791

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 20, 2019

Kawel PLLC, and Andrew Paul Kawel and Andrew Richard Verblow, for appellant.

Roger Cabrera, P.A., and Roger Cabrera, for appellees.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J.

As we have no basis for concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for entitlement to attorney's fees, we affirm. *See* *Kelsey v. Metro Constr.*, 31 So.3d 252, 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("The standard of review for prevailing party attorney's fees is abuse of discretion." (citation omitted)); *see also* *Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("Without a[n adequate] record ... the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the *1156trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal."); *Del Valle v. Biltmore II Condo. Ass'n, Inc.*, 411 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ("Where, as here, the unit owner denies each and every material allegation in a complaint for injunctive relief and, additionally, interposes affirmative defenses ... which, if proved at time of trial, would have precluded the Association from obtaining the relief requested, we have no basis for concluding that the Association was the prevailing party where the dismissal for mootness was unrelated to the merits of the case.").

Affirmed.
Stanley H. HUNTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4634

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 29 (Thursday, February 13, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9553-9554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02593]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-1485]

Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Benuvia 
Operations, LLC

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Benuvia Operations, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
April 14, 2025. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before April 14, 2025.

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all 
comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into 
the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier 
comments. Please go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon 
submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. 
Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously 
available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have 
received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully 
submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on December 4, 2024, Benuvia Operations, LLC, 3950 North

[[Page 9554]]

Mays Street, Round Rock, Texas 78665, applied to be registered as a 
bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fentanyl-Related Substance..............    9850  I
Amphetamine.............................    1100  II
Lisdexamfetamine........................    1205  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled 
substances for internal research and dosage formulation development. No 
other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this 
registration.

Matthew Strait,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-02593 Filed 2-12-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 25 (Friday, February 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 9156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02364]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-164]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed January 27, 2025 10 a.m. EST Through February 3, 2025 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20250018, Final, NRCS, GA, Watershed Plan and Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Lower Little Tallapoosa River Watershed 
Structure No. 25A, Review Period Ends: 03/10/2025, Contact: Sharon 
Swagger 706-546-2203.
EIS No. 20250019, Final, NRC, SC, Site-Specific Environmental Impact 
Statement for Subsequent License Renewal of Oconee Nuclear Station, 
Units 1, 2, and 3 Second Renewal, Final Report, Review Period Ends: 03/
10/2025, Contact: Lance Rakovan 301-415-2589.

    Dated: February 3, 2025.
Nancy Abrams,
Associate Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2025-02364 Filed 2-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
---

Exhibit 99.8 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Rio Alto Mining Limited(the “Issuer”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony Hawkshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer . March 28, 2013/s/ Anthony HawkshawAnthony HawkshawChief Financial Officer


---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JOSEPH MASON SPRAGUE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:04-cr-00029-HMH-AL) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Mason Sprague, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* While it appears as though an appeal from the district court’s denial of Sprague’s Rule 36 motion may be untimely, Sprague has asserted that he did not receive notice of the denial of said motion until the day before he filed his motion for written order and motion for clarification. Even assuming, arguendo , that he timely raised his challenge to the underlying order, given that there is no error, clerical or otherwise, in Sprague’s judgment of conviction, this challenge would be without merit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph Sprague appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for written order and for clarification of record, following the denial of Sprague’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. The underlying basis for Sprague’s motion is that he seeks to have his criminal judgment order amended to reflect satisfaction of the restitution ordered by the district court, based upon the forfeiture by the United States of a vehicle Sprague purchased allegedly with proceeds from the bank robbery of which he was convicted. We find no error in the district court’s denial of Sprague’s motion. To the extent Sprague seeks to appeal the denial of his request for clarification of the district court’s oral order denying Sprague’s Rule 36 motion, we find no error. The docket sheet clearly shows that the district court denied his motion for clarification. To the extent Sprague seeks to challenge the district court’s denial of the underlying Rule 36 motion, *we likewise find no error. The judgment order is correct as entered. The determination of whether Sprague’s restitution obligations have been satisfied is a post-judgment accounting matter that does not- 3 - affect the integrity of the original judgment of conviction. 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
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER R EINSTATING ORIGINAL P ROCEEDINGS AND G RANTING T EMPORARY S TAY

Appellate case name: In re The State of Texas Ex Rel. Brian W. Wice

Appellate case number s : 01

- 20

- 0047 7

- CR ; 01

- 20

- 0047 8

- CR; 01

- 20

- 0047 9

- CR

Trial court case number s : 155510 0, 155510 1, 1555102

Trial court: 1 85 th District Court of Harris County

On June 30, 2020, r elator Brian W. Wice filed a petition for writ of mandamus : (1) challenging a June 25, 2020 order signed by the Honorable Robert Johnson, Presiding Judge of
the 17 7 th District Court of Harris County

, vacating a change of venue order in the underlying cases and returning venue of the cases to Collin County; and (2) compelling rulings on certain motions

. On July 7, 2002, our C ourt issued an order staying enforcement of Judge Johnson’s June 25, 2020 order until the mandamus petition is finally decided. Relator subsequently informed this
Court that : (1) Jud g e Johnson voluntarily recused himself from the underlying case s on July 6,
2020 ; and (2) the cases were reassigned on July 15, 2020

, to the Honorable Jason Luong of the
185 th District Court

. On July 27, 2020, our Court abated these original proceedings to allow Judge Luong to reconsid er the challenged order returning venue of the cases to Collin County and, if appropriate, to consider the pending motions

. On October 23, 2020, Judge Luong issued an “ Order of Reconsideration of Prior Order Vacating Order of Transfer to Harris Count y ” fi nding that : (1) he lack s jurisdiction to review the challenged order or any pending motions in the cases because his plenary jurisdiction expired ; and (2) alternatively, if it is determined that he does have jurisdiction to review the order, then he similarly finds that the order transferring the cases to Harris County should be vacated and the cases returned to Collin County.

Relator has filed a motion to stay enforcement of Judge Luong’s October 23, 2020 order and subsequently filed a Supplement to His Petition for Mandamus on Reinstatement After Abatement. Real party in interest has filed a motion reasserting his response to the original mandamus petition.

We lift the abatement and REINST A TE these original proceedings on the Court’s active docket. Relator’s motion to stay enfo rcement of Judge Luong’s October 23, 2020 order is
GRANTED. Our stay of the June 25, 2020 order returning venue to Collin County similarly
remains in effect. Accordingly, enforcement of the se orders is ordered stayed until the mandamus petition in this Cou rt is finally decided or the Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. See T EX

. R.A PP

. P. 52.10(b). Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

52.10(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Gordon Goodman

____ Acting Individually

Date: ___ October 29, 2020

____
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
FREDERICK E. KREPPS AND MARGARET M. KREPPS, Petitioners

v. KHRISTIAN SNYDER, DPM AND CHERRY TREE FOOT AND ANKLE SPECIALISTS, P.C., Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 314 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 31st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
Russell Timothy GASKIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3352

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRANCISCA MORALEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PEET'S OPERATING COMPANY, INC., et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00289-RS 

STANDBY ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Court has been informed that the above-entitled action has settled. Accordingly, the 

Court vacates all pretrial and trial dates. The parties are required to file a stipulation of dismissal 

by May 18, 2017. If a stipulation of dismissal is not filed by that date, the parties are ordered to 

appear on May 25, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor of the San Francisco 

Courthouse and show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Failure to comply with this 

Order may result in dismissal of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 13, 2017 

______________________________________ 

Richard Seeborg 

 United States District Judge
Rufus C. MOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-5123

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 8

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 23-13 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
Phillip Wayne COLLINS, II, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mark INCH, Secretary D.O.C., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0449

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
C.M., the mother, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, and Guardian Ad Litem, Appellee.

No. 4D19-646

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 30, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6321

LORENZO MAURICE JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. E. GUNJA, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-01-473-WMN)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Maurice Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Maurice Johnson appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Johnson v. Gunja, No. CA-01-473-WMN (D. Md.

Feb. 16, 2001). 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
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

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



In connection with this filing of AOB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), Michael Lin, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 12(g) 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 Lin

Chief Executive Officer

Date: September 29, 2006