alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 34.4**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Certification Regarding Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that BancTec, Inc. (“the Company”) complied with theapplicable servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for remittance processing services including asset-backed securities transactions involving creditcard receivables conducted by Discover Card Master Trust I and Discover Card Execution Note Trust (“the Platform”) that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or werenot required to be registered where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period as of and for the year ended November 30, 2012. The Company has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria is notapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended November 30, 2012. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform 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 theCompany’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions andsecurities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period covered by the report.Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurredprior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that BancTec, Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria, as described within Management’s Report, as of and for the year ended November 30, 2012 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all materialrespects. 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

February 20, 2013
Donald R. EARL, petitioner, v. MENU FOODS INCOME FUND, INC., et al.

No. 12-1083.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, denied.
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00481-JVB-PRC   document 1   filed 12/19/13   page 1 of 5

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00481-JVB-PRC   document 1   filed 12/19/13   page 2 of 5

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00481-JVB-PRC   document 1   filed 12/19/13   page 3 of 5

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00481-JVB-PRC   document 1   filed 12/19/13   page 4 of 5

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00481-JVB-PRC   document 1   filed 12/19/13   page 5 of 5
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Richard E. Staedtler, the Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Castle Energy Corporation, hereby certifies that:

I.      The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the three months ended June
        30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) 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.

Dated: August 16, 2004                     /S/RICHARD E. STAEDTLER
      ------------------                   -------------------------
                                           Richard E. Staedtler
                                           Chief Financial Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Castle Energy Corporation and will be retained by Castle Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals hereby passes

the followi

ng order: A 1 4A1951. CONNIE’S FLOWE RS & CREATIV E EVENTS et al. v. S TATE COURTMEMBE RS OF D EKALB C OUNTY et al. The appellant

in this c ase fai ledto co mply with t he noti ce of doc keti ng mail ed by this Cou rt and with Cou rt of A ppe als Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the fil ing of an enumeration of errors and brie f within t wenty days after t

he appeal was docket ed . See also Cou rt of A ppe als Ru le 13 . As o f the d ate of thi s order, the appe lla nt’s brief and enumeration of errors still have not been fil ed. Accordingly, t his appeal i s deemed abandoned and is hereby ORDE RED dismissed. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify t hat the ab ove is a tru e extract f rom the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witnes s my signature a nd the seal of said cour t hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en. , Clerk. 

### 07/25/2014 July 25, 2014
#### SPRINGER, Appellant, v. THOMPSON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 20, 1913.)

Action by Charles H. Springer against Henrietta T. Thompson.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeai granted, with $10 costs. ;_
Mohamad Youssef HAMMOUD, aka Ali Abousaleh, aka Ali Albousaleh, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7912.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of AXCESS International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Allan Griebenow, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated. /S/ ALLAN GRIEBENOW
Allan Griebenow
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer Dated: May 13, 2005
Shaun McCUTCHEON, et al., appellants, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

No. 12-536.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Motion of appellants to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-85

)

EDWARD WILLIAMS )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on April 25, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of Count 1 as charged in the two-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 25th day of April 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KARIM THOMAS
, Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 187

[ January 17, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Peter D. Blanc , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2013CA016608XXXMB

.

Michael Alex Wasylik of Ricardo & Wasylik, PL, Dade City, for appellant.

Sara F. Holladay

- Tobias, Emily Y. Rottmann, and C.H. Houston III of McGuireWoods LLP, Jacksonville, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

A

ffirmed.

L EVINE
, C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ.

, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Emmanuel Kwame BOATENG, petitioner, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT.

No. 12-9745.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Karol Ray McATEE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7260.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, President, Director and 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.





/s/ E. James Collord

By  __________________________________

E.  James Collord

President, Director and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 16, 2005
**
**EXHIBIT 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ron Hooper, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust,for which Simmons Bank acts as Trustee; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing such controls and proceduresto be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors: 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
By: /s/ Ron Hooper
Ron Hooper

SVP, Royalty Trust Management

Simmons Bank

Date: August 7, 2020 
**
Mobile Financial Services and 

Economic Inclusion White Paper 

Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion | October 9, 2013
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Overview

 Identify the potential of mobile financial services (MFS) to expand economic 

inclusion by assessing the ability of bank-sponsored MFS to increase 

consumer access to mainstream banking relationships, improve the 

sustainability of those relationships, and provide opportunities for growth.

 Identify ways in which MFS has the greatest potential to facilitate economic 

inclusion. 

 Identify any limitations of MFS, including consumer and industry risks, as an 

economic inclusion tool. 

 Identify opportunities to expand the economic inclusion potential of MFS as 

well as areas that require additional monitoring or investigation. 

 Present a set of principles to guide the implementation of MFS in a way that 

helps promote economic inclusion.

 Industry participants, technology providers, policy-makers, and consumer 

groups interested in facilitating economic inclusion through bank-sponsored 

MFS.

Objective

Contribution

Audience
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Framework

 Banking system 

appeal

 Onboarding 

process

 Safe products

 Relevant products

 Easy/convenient

 Feasible

 Increase financial 

capability(e.g., 

financial education 

and wealth building 

tools)

 Full integration to 

banking system

Economic Inclusion 

Framework

ACCESS

SUSTAINABILITY

GROWTH
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Next Steps and Timeline

 Reaching out to industry participants and interested organizations

 Web-based research

 Continued monitoring

 Paper presented to the ComE-In in early 2014. 

Next Steps

Timeline

 Yazmin Osaki: yosaki@fdic.gov (202) 898-6553

 Susan Burhouse: sburhouse@fdic.gov (202) 898-3674

 Matthew Homer: mhomer@fdic.gov (202) 898-6941

Contact
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27796-27797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12910]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel for Geosciences; Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 
92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel for Geosciences (1756).
    Date: June 12-14, 1995.
    Time: 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. each day. [[Page 27797]] 
    Place: Room 360 & 365, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Maryellen Cameron, Program Director, 
Petrology and Geochemistry Program, Division of Earth Sciences, Room 
785, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-
1554.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate environmental geochemistry and 
biochemistry proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 22, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12910 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2668

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Dangelo P. Moore lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________ Submitted: April 2, 2021 Filed: April 7, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Dangelo Moore appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and

1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Sugentino PERCEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6862.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
1 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-1837

___________ Curtis R. Doyle, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Masonic Home of Missouri, other * Glenn Means, through their interim * [UNPUBLISHED] executive director and president of the * board of directors, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 17, 2002 Filed: July 22, 2002

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Curtis R. Doyle appeals the District Court’s 1 dismissal of his employmentdiscrimination action based on Doyle’s failure to file his complaint within ninety days after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) gave notice of his-2- right to sue. See42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (1994). Having carefully reviewed the record, see Trimble v. Asarco, Inc. , 232 F.3d 946, 955-56 (8th Cir. 2000), we affirm. Doyle claimed that his action was timely, because mail-delivery problems prevented him from receiving the EEOC’s May 2000 right-to-sue letter until June 2001, when an EEOC employee handed it to him. See Hill v. John Chezik Imports , 869 F.2d 1122, 1124 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that the Title VII 90-day limitation period is subject to equitable tolling in certain circumstances). We agree with the District Court that Doyle provided no valid basis for equitable tolling. Among other reasons, Doyle does not dispute that he received the EEOC’s October 2000 letter stating that his Missouri Commission on Human Rights charge was being dismissed as duplicative of his EEOC charge and that an EEOC right-to-sue letter had been issued in May. Thus, he had notice well before June 2001 that the EEOC had issued its right-to-sue letter in May 2000, yet he waited until September 2001 to file his complaint. Cf. Cook v. Providence Hosp. , 820 F.2d 176, 177-80 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that there was no basis for equitable tolling because the plaintiff testified that she never received May 1983 right-to-sue notice, but she admitted being told in June 1984 that notice had been issued and she waited until October 1985 before filing suit). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.