alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 34.5**

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We haveexamined management’s assertion, Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), as of November 30, 2012, and for the period from December 1, 2011 through November 30,2012, except for servicing criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i)–(iv), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(vi)–(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), 1122 (d)(4)(i)–(ii), and 1122 (d)(4)(iv)–(xiv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to theactivities 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’sassertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance 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, evidenceabout 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 backedtransactions 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 activitiesin 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 todetermine 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 anyother 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 November 30, 2012, and forthe period from December 1, 2011 through November 30, 2012, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

February 6, 2013
Amendment No. 1 to Rock-Tenn Company Annual Excecutive Bonus Program



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO 
 ROCK-TENN COMPANY 
 ANNUAL EXECUTIVE BONUS PROGRAM 
 Rock-Tenn Company hereby amends § 5 of the Rock-Tenn Company Annual Executive Bonus Program to read as
follows: 
 CERTIFICATION 
 The Committee at the end
of each Fiscal Year shall certify the extent, if any, to which the Performance Goals set for each Participant for such Fiscal Year have been met and shall determine the bonus payable to each Participant based on the extent, if any, to which he or
she met his or her Performance Goals. However, the Committee shall have the right to reduce the bonus determined under this § 5 to the extent that the Committee acting in its discretion determines that the Performance Goals set for a
Participant for a Fiscal Year no longer were appropriate for such Participant at the end of such Fiscal Year. If the Committee certifies that a bonus is payable to a Participant for any Fiscal Year, such bonus shall be paid in cash as soon as
practical after such certification has been made, but in any event, by no later than the 15th day of March following the end of such Fiscal Year. However, no
Participant shall have a right to the payment of a bonus for any Fiscal Year if his or her employment with Rock-Tenn Company has terminated for any reason whatsoever before the date the bonus is actually paid unless the Committee in the exercise of
its absolute discretion affirmatively directs Rock-Tenn Company to pay such bonus to, or on behalf of, such Participant. 
 This Amendment Number 1
shall be effective as of this 30th day of October 2008. 
  

			
	ROCK-TENN COMPANY
		
	BY:	 	/s/ Steven C. Voorhees
		
	Title:	 	Executive VP, CFO and Chief Administrative Officer
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, William Frederick, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Pharsight Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 officer(s) 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 subsidiaries, 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably 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 auditors and the audit committee of 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 reasonably 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: June 23, 2006



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    WILLIAM
FREDERICK                                             
|William Frederick                                                    
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andCorporate Secretary
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with
the annual report of Eiger Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John G. Simmonds,
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:





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: April
      25, 2008
            By: /s/
      John G. SimmondsName: John G.
      SimmondsTitle:   Chief
      Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned executive officer of TD Banknorth Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifiesthat the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.           /s/ Stephen J. Boyle           Name: Stephen J. Boyle    Title: Chief Financial Officer  Date: August 4, 2006Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 has been provided to TD Banknorth Inc. and will be retained by TD Banknorth Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
62
EARNEST PHILLIPS, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent EARNEST PHILLIPS A/K/A ERNEST PHILLIPS, Appellant,

vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Parfaguirre 

# 0 

# \

2 ' 4 7 ,J. Cherry 

### //- Douglas

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (th 1947A e No. 67087

No. 67206



### ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS These are pro se appeals from court orders resolving various pretrial motions and a court order denying a petition to resubmit appellant's pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.

No statute or court rule permits an appeal from an order denying such motions or resolving such a petition. 

### See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990); Gary 

### v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 78, 605 P.2d 212 (1980) (no appeal lies from an order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals, and we

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED.

2

OM=cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Earnest Phillips Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ce,
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Partners Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Charles T. DeBilio, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, to his knowledge on the date hereof, 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 as of and for the period covered
by the report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Partners Financial Corporation and will be retained by Partners
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                        |  |     |  |                                             
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: February 13, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles T. DeBilio                      
|                        |  |     |  | Charles T. DeBilio, Executive Vice President
|                        |  |     |  | and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CENTOCOR, 
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF 
OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          82,183
<SECURITIES>                                   116,974
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,442
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               325,770
<PP&E>                                         221,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 732,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,880
<BONDS>                                        460,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           705
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   732,820
<SALES>                                        213,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,416
<CGS>                                           77,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               272,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (115,675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,865
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (117,540)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (117,540)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.67)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1475

BRAD R. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SALLIE MAE SERVICING, LP; CHRISTINE DONNELLY;

MARK E. SHURE; A. ABLE; B. BAKER; C. CHARLIE;

SHELLEY M. TURNER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Thomas E. Rogers, III, Magistrate

Judge. (4:03-cv-03857-TER)

Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stuart M. Axelrod, AXELROD & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Myrtle Beach, South

Carolina, for Appellant. James D. Cooper, Jr., COOPER, COFFAS,

MOORE & GRAY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brad R. Johnson appeals a magistrate judge’s order and

judgment granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing

his complaint arising out of the revisions to a student loan

repayment plan.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the magistrate

judge. Johnson v. Sallie Mae Servicing, LP, No. 4:03-cv-03857-TER

(D.S.C. filed Mar. 28, 2007; entered Mar. 29, 2007). 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
Stuart HICKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-888

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 26, 2019

Stuart Hickson, Bristol, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Stuart Hickson, appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In his rule 3.850 motion, Appellant claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in that counsel misadvised him to reject the State's plea offer of thirty years in prison and misadvised him as to the strength of the State's case against him. Appellant, now serving multiple life sentences as a Prison Releasee Reoffender, asserts that, but for counsel's misadvice, he would have accepted the State's offer. The postconviction court summarily denied Appellant's motion.

We review the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion de novo. *Lebron v. State*, 100 So.3d 132, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The postconviction court must conduct an evidentiary hearing unless the allegations are facially insufficient, conclusively refuted by the record, or legally insufficient. *Id.*

In reviewing the record attached to the challenged order, we find nothing that conclusively refutes Appellant's facially-sufficient allegations. We therefore reverse the summary denial and remand for the postconviction court to attach records conclusively refuting Appellant's claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, WALLIS, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS IGLESIAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FERRARA CANDY CO.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00849-VC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

INTERVENE

Re: Dkt. No. 60

The motion to intervene is denied. The movants may file objections or seek to exclude 

themselves from the proposed class settlement at preliminary and/or final approval and raise the 

concerns that they describe in their motion to intervene at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
Marvin FLEMINGS, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-9431.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.
---

Exhibit 99.7 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, Alexander Black, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Isuer, 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/ Alexander BlackAlexander BlackPresident & Chief Executive Officer


---
1 

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 

JODI LINKER

Federal Public Defender 

Northern District of California 

SAMANTHA JAFFE 

Assistant Federal Public Defender 

13th Floor Federal Building - Suite 1350N 

1301 Clay Street 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 637-3500 

Facsimile: (510) 637-3507 

Email: Samantha_Jaffe@fd.org 

Counsel for Defendant Session 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MAJOR SESSION, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: CR–15-290-PJH-6/CR-17-0089-PJH-1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

CONTINUE STATUS REGARDING 

PRELIMINARY REVOCATION HEARING

Court: Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor

Mr. Session is set for a status regarding his preliminary hearing as to revocation before this 

Court on March 6, 2024. The parties jointly request a continuance of this status until Wednesday, 

April 17, 2024, to allow additional time to discuss a resolution. The parties agree that time should be 

excluded until April 17, 2024. 

Initial discovery production occurred on January 30, 2024. A protective order has been agreed 

to and was filed, and additional discovery was produced on March 1, 2024. 

 Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree to this continuance of the status to allow discovery 

production and discussions regarding resolution. 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS 

SESSION, CR-15-290-PJH-6/CR-17-0089-PJH-1

Case 4:17-cr-00089-PJH Document 70 Filed 03/05/24 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS 

SESSION, CR–15-290-PJH-6/CR-17-0089-PJH-1

2 

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 

Dated: March 5, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

JODI LINKER 

Federal Public Defender 

Northern District of California 

/S 

SAMANTHA JAFFE 

Assistant Federal Public Defender 

 Dated: March 5, 2024 

ISMAIL J. RAMSEY 

United States Attorney

Northern District of California 

/S/ 

GARTH HIRE 

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:17-cr-00089-PJH Document 70 Filed 03/05/24 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS 

SESSION, CR-15-290-PJH-6/CR-17-0089-PJH-1

3 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

MAJOR SESSION, III, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: CR-15-290-PJH-6/CR-17-0089-PJH-1

ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS AND 

EXCLUDE TIME

Based on the agreement of the parties in the stipulation above, the status hearing regarding 

preliminary hearing as to revocation set for March 6, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., is vacated. This matter is 

reset to April 17, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

THE HON. DONNA M. RYU 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

March 5, 2024 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:17-cr-00089-PJH Document 70 Filed 03/05/24 Page 3 of 3
Genghis Nicholas KOCAKER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9473.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.