alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350,
as adopted), Dr. Paramesh Gopi, Chief Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | 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 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 (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report
to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/ Paramesh GopiDr. Paramesh GopiPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: July 31, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<CASH>                                  37,219
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        21,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            471,915
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   2,634
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     2,613
<LOANS>                              1,054,841
<ALLOWANCE>                             (9,876)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,637,434
<DEPOSITS>                           1,013,175
<SHORT-TERM>                           300,162
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     74,506
<LONG-TERM>                             66,711
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                29,613
<OTHER-SE>                             153,267
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       1,637,434
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         23,585
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        7,542
<INTEREST-OTHER>                           432
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        31,559
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       9,128
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      14,585
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   16,974
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              575
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         11,777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          9,029
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               9,029
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             6,418
<EPS-BASIC>                             0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.42
<LOANS-NON>                              1,602
<LOANS-PAST>                             1,915
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           773
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         12,008
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         9,854
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              615
<RECOVERIES>                                62
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        9,876
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     9,876
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      0

</TABLE>
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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES W SCHUBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00856-KAW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 63

On July 17, 2019, the Court discharged an order to show cause and set a deadline for 

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 63.) In that order, the Court also required 

Attorney Daniel Alan Grout to serve the order on Plaintiff, explaining that Attorney Grout was 

still Plaintiff’s counsel of record. (Id. at 2.) Attorney Grout has never moved to withdraw, and 

while Plaintiff filed a substitution of counsel, the substitution of counsel was not signed by 

Attorney Grout. Instead, it was signed by James W. Haworth, who has never appeared before this 

Court. (Dkt. No. 62.) The Court required Attorney Grout to file a proof of service within four 

days of the date of this order, and stated that “Attorney Grout must continue to serve all court 

filings on Plaintiff until he is relieved of his obligations as counsel of record.” (Dkt. No. 63 at 2.)

As of the date of this order, Attorney Grout has not filed a proof of service. Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS Attorney Grout to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by: (1) filing 

the proof of service by August 5, 2019, and (2) explaining why he failed to comply with the 

Court’s order. Failure to comply may result in the Court imposing sanctions. In light of the 

failure to serve, Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended complaint shall be thirty days from the date 

of service of the Court’s July 17, 2019 order.

Attorney Grout shall also serve this order on Plaintiff, and file a proof of service by August 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER 

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

THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FERRARA CANDY CO., and DOES 1 through 

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00849-VC

[CLASS ACTION]

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND 

SERVICE AWARD

Hon. Judge Vince Chabbria

Date: October 25, 2018

Time: 10:00 AM

Judge: Hon. Vince Chabbria

Courtroom: Courtroom 4

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 94 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 2
1 

ORDER 

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

This Court, having received and fully considered Plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion 

for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service award; supporting memorandum of points and 

authorities; the declaration of Ryan J. Clarkson; the declaration of Thomas Iglesias; the pleadings, 

declarations, and other evidence previously filed with this Court on May 10, 2018 in connection 

with the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval and supporting papers; and the oral argument 

presented to the Court, HEREBY ORDERS and MAKES DETERMINATIONS that:

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), this Court finds and determines 

that reasonable attorneys’ fees should be awarded to Class Counsel Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., in 

the amount of 25% of the $2.5 million claim fund amount. Specifically, the Court awards and 

grants final approval of the sum of $625,000 as attorneys’ fees to be paid out of the common fund

within 30 days or as otherwise provided in the parties’ settlement agreement. This award 

represents a 1.19 multiplier, which is well within the range of multipliers the courts have allowed, 

and is warranted in this case.

2. The fee award is appropriate based on Class Counsel’s efforts and the substantial 

benefits to the class. Class Counsel dedicated significant time and resources in pursuing 

Plaintiff’s claims, and did so despite the real risk of nonpayment for their investment of time and 

resources due to the contingent nature of their representation.

3. The Court finds and determines that $102,172.12 in litigation expenses were 

reasonably incurred by Class Counsel and are awarded to Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. and to be paid 

out of the common fund within 30 days or as otherwise provided in the parties’ settlement 

agreement.

4. The Court finds that Thomas Iglesias’ substantial efforts on behalf of the settlement 

class warrant a service award in the amount of $5,000, which shall be paid out of the common 

fund within 30 days or as otherwise provided in the parties’ settlement agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________, 2018 _____________________________

Honorable Vince Chabbria

United States District Judge

November 8

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 94 Filed 11/08/18 Page 2 of 2
EX-34.3
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors
Column Financial Inc.:

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying
Management Assessment that Column Financial Inc. ("The Company") complied with
the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(ii) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for publicly issued commercial mortgage
backed securities on or after January 1, 2007 ("The Platform") for which the
company acted as a Pool Asset Administrator, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Company because the Company does not
perform activities with respect to the Platform relating to those criteria.
Appendix A to Management Assessment identifies the individual asset-backed
transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the 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
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing 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 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 assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007, is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
March 14, 2008



KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
  As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003 (the Report) of Kiewit Royalty Trust (the Trust), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ted L.
Hall, the trust officer of U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee of the
Trust, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition, distributable income and changes
in trust corpus of the Trust.



| | /s/ Ted L. Hall
Ted L. Hall
Vice President and Trust Officer
U.S. Bank National Association
Trustee
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6358

GARY D. GILLESPIE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HOWARD PAINTER, acting warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District

Judge. (CA-98-104-1)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary D. Gillespie, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Leah

Perry Macia, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We have given Gillespie the benefit of the filing provisions

enunciated in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Gary D. Gillespie seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West Supp. 1999) petition. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Gillespie’s

notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

December 22, 1999. Gillespie’s notice of appeal was filed on March

3, 2000.* Because Gillespie failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ISMAEL MENDOZA,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00125

- CR

Appeal from the

120th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20100D04944)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
Elnora MOSES, petitioner, v. TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

No. 13-6739.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

*724Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

     <ARTICLE>      5  
     <LEGEND>       The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements of Niagara Corporation and subsidiaries
                    as of September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its
                    entirety by reference to such financial
                    statements.
     </LEGEND>
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>        12-31-96       12-31-96     
     <PERIOD-START>           07-01-96       01-01-96   
     <PERIOD-END>             09-30-96       09-30-96  
     <PERIOD-TYPE>            3-mos.         9-mos.  
     <CASH>                    1273951        1273951 
     <SECURITIES>                 0              0    
     <RECEIVABLES>             8655184        8655184   
     <ALLOWANCES>               384553         384553   
     <INVENTORY>              14899982       14899982   
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>         24973209       24973209   
     <PP&E>                   22716983       22716983   
     <DEPRECIATION>            1209176        1209176   
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>           49694510       49694510   
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>    11245565       11245565   
     <BONDS>                  19402145       19402145   
     <COMMON>                     3669           3669   
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0               0     
     <PREFERRED>                  0               0     
     <OTHER-SE>               15499131       15499131 
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-
       AND-EQUITY>            49694510       49694510 
     <SALES>                  18524082       58946011 
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>         18524082       58946011 
     <CGS>                    15430514       50064045 
     <TOTAL-COSTS>            15430514       50064045 
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>          2241296        6427854 
     <LOSS-PROVISION>             0               0  
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>         397115        1033312
     <INCOME-PRETAX>            636238        1646453
     <INCOME-TAX>               242000         606000
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>        394238        1040453
     <DISCONTINUED>               0               0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>              0               0
     <CHANGES>                    0               0
     <NET-INCOME>               394238        1040453  
     <EPS-PRIMARY>                 .11                 .29 
     <EPS-DILUTED>                 .11                 .29 
             

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11839]



[[Page 25928]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for the collection of information listed below has 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35). Copies of the proposed collection of information and related forms 
may be obtained by contacting the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) 
clearance officer at the telephone number listed below. Comments and 
suggestions on the proposal should be made directly to Reclamation's 
clearance officer and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project (1006-0006), Washington, DC 20503, Telephone 202 395-
7340.
    Title: Certification Summary Form and Reporting Summary Form for 
Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR Part 426.
    OMB approval number: 1006-0006.
    Abstract: These forms are to be used by water district offices to 
summarize individual landholder certification and reporting forms as 
required by the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (Title II of Public Law 
97-293) and 43 CFR Part 426, Rules and Regulations for Projects 
Governed by Federal Reclamation Law. This information allows 
Reclamation to establish water users' compliance with Reclamation law.
    Reclamation form numbers: 7-1781A and 7-1781B.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Description of respondents: Contracting organizations for 
Reclamation project irrigation water.
    Estimated completion time: 40 hours.
    Annual responses: 318.
    Annual burden hours: 12,720.
    Reclamation clearance officer: Marilyn Rehfeld, 303-236-0305 
(X459).

    Dated: April 5, 1995.
Alonzo D. Knapp,
Manager, Reclamation Law, Contracts, and Repayment Office.
[FR Doc. 95-11839 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M
Francisco MORALES-MOTA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES; Edgar Santana Cardena Gonzales, aka Cornelio Martinez Espinoza, aka Edgar Santana Gonzalez Cardenas, aka Edgar Santana Cardenas-Gonzalez, aka Edgar Santana Cardenas, aka Reynaldo Garza-Medina, aka Eladio Vasquez, aka Edgar Cardenas Gonzalez, aka Reynaldo Garza Medina, aka Edgar Gonzalez Cardenas, aka Edgar Cardenas Gonzalez, aka Cornelio Espinoza Martinez, petitioner, v. United States; Pedro Campos-Contreras, aka Pedro Mauricio Campos-Contreras, petitioner, v. United States; Arnold Avila Avellaneda, aka Arnold Avila, aka Arnold Avila-Avellaneda, petitioner, v. United States; Jose Carmen Silva Gomez, aka Jose Carmen Silva, aka Jose Carmen Silva-Gomez, aka Tranquilin Silva Gomez, aka Tranquilin Gomez, aka Jose Silva, petitioner, v. United States; Nelson Antonio Suazo, aka Antonio Nelson Suazo, aka Nelson Suazo, petitioner, v. United States; and Ceasar Gonzales, aka Rene Castro, aka Ceasar Elliot Gonzalez, petitioner, v. United States.

No. 12-9676

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Everett HOUCK, petitioner, v. Harold BALL, et al.

No. 12-9434.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
James GUILBEAU, et al. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al.

Keith Antoine v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., et al.

Clyde Guillory v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., et al.

No. 19-CC-0579

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. LANDRY**

Writ denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

For the reasons stated by Judge Pickett in his dissent, I would grant the defendant's writ application, reverse the lower courts' rulings and reinstate the defendant's right to a jury trial in this case.