alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2



                     CERTIFICATION OF THE CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Niagara
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Anthony J. Verkruyse, as the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Anthony J. Verkruyse
-------------------------
Anthony J. Verkruyse
Vice President, Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act oF 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32

OSG AMERICA L.P.  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

Each of the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of OSG America LLC (the "Company"), the general partner of OSG America L.P.
(the "Partnership"), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that the Form 10-K of the Partnership for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 (the
"Periodic Report") accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. This certification is provided solely for
purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose.

Date: March 6, 2009

/s/ MYLES R. ITKINMyles R. Itkin
Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 6, 2009

/s/ HENRY P. FLINTERHenry P. Flinter
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF EXPERIAN & EQUIFAX–- INFANTE V SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, NO. 

3:17-CV-00793 MMC

Page 1 of 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

Mark F. Anderson (SBN 44787)

ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER LLP

1736 Stockton Street, Ground Floor

San Francisco, California 94133

Telephone: (415) 651-1951

Fax: (415) 500-8300

Email: mark@aoblawyers.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Cecilia F. Infante

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIA F. INFANTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, et al,

Defendants.

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00793 MMC

(proposed) ORDER FOR DISMISSAL 

OF DEFENDANTS EXPERIAN 

INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.& 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION 

SERVICES, LLC

Based on the parties’ stipulation and for good cause shown, plaintiff Cecilia F. Infante’s

claims against defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Equifax Information Services, 

LLC are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own fees and costs, pursuant to 

Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41(a)(2). 

Date: May ___, 2017

 

 _____________________________________

United States District Judge

DISMISSING 23
Ricky BARTLETT, petitioner, v. Max ROBESON, et al.

No. 12-9119.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 12

McDonnell Douglas Finance Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                   Three months ended March 31,
Dollars in millions)                                                              1997              1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                            <C>                <C>   
Income:
  Income before provision for income taxes                                     $      19.9        $      21.5
  Fixed charges                                                                       34.0               27.8
                                                                           -------------------------------------
  Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges                   $      53.9        $      49.3
                                                                           =====================================

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                             $      33.2        $      26.9
  Preferred stock dividends                                                            0.8                0.9
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                                               $      34.0        $      27.8
                                                                           =====================================

Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed
  charges to fixed charges                                                             1.59               1.77
                                                                           =====================================
</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00090

- CV
COUNTY OF HIDALGO, TEXAS

v. MARIA TAYLOR
On Appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 2763

- 19

- F

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for obser vance. July 21, 2022
EX-34.4
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:


We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007. 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 servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 12, 2008


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
[ K P M G   L o g o ]  KPMG LLP Sate 2000 355 South Grand Avenue  Los Angeles, CA 90071-1568 **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**The Board of Directors Countrywide Bank, FSB: We have examined management's assessment, included in the Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Treasury Bank, a division of Countrywide Bank, FSB (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for publicly issued HELOC and other residential mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January I, 2006 (the Platform), specifically Items 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), for which the Company provides custodial operations of pool assets and related documents, 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. Schedule A to the Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria 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 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 servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated in all material respects. /s/ KPMG LLP Los Angeles, California February 28, 2008
Corbin THOMAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10421.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 138 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 

Received 

AN ACT 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA–06P. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

HR 138 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN JOHN H. CHAFEE 

2 COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map subtitled ‘‘GA–06P’’, re4 lating to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

5 System unit designated as Coastal Barrier Resources Sys6 tem Jekyll Island Unit GA–06P, that is included in the 

7 set of maps entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Re8 sources System’’ and referred to in section 4(a) of the 

9 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), is 

10 hereby replaced by another map relating to the unit enti11 tled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

12 Jekyll Island Unit GA–06P’’ and dated July 10, 2006. 

13 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

14 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

15 (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

16 the provisions of section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Re17 sources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Passed the House of Representatives September 12, 

2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James J. Polakiewicz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Alpha Technologies Group, Inc.;

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 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) (Intentionally left blank)

c) 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

d) 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 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

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.



/s/ James J. Polakiewicz
------------------------
James J. Polakiewicz
Chief Financial Officer
September 10, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7183 ANTONIO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THERESA BLANTON, Nurse, Defendant - Appellee, and JUAN VAUGHN, Sheriff at Herford County Sheriff’s Department/Detention Center, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00605-H) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Walter Gregory Merritt, Jay C. Salsman, HARRIS, CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Antonio Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Blanton , No. 5:05-ct-00605-H (E.D.N.C. July 24, 2007). We deny Williams’ motion to add evidence. 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
Stephen GRAHAM-WRIGHT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5766.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 23-0566

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JORY JERAE SONGER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

UPON the Defendant’s unopposed motion for extension, good cause 

appearing therefrom,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline to file the opening brief in this 

matter is extended to June 12, 2024.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 13 2024

05/13/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0566
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





Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Fushi
      International, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that


to
      the
      best of his knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006 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.





Dated:
      November 14, 2006





/s/
      Li
      Fu


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


Li
      Fu


Chief
      Executive Officer





/s/
      Wenbing Chris Wang


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


Wenbing
      Chris Wang


Chief
      Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Fushi International, Inc. and will be retained by Fushi International, Inc.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Robert LOFFREDI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7017.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Sunshine Act Meetings 25265

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Agency Meetings

‘‘FEDERAL REGISTER’’ CITATION OF

PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [To Be

Published].

STATUS: Closed and Open Meetings.

PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

DATE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED: To Be

Published.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Time Changes.

The time for the closed meeting

scheduled for Tuesday, May 9, 1995, at

10:00 a.m., have been changed to 10:30

a.m. The time for the open meeting

scheduled for Wednesday, May 10,

1995, at 10.00 a.m., has been changed to

9:00 a.m.

Commissioner Roberts, as duty

officer, determined that Commission

business required the above changes

and that no earlier notice thereof was

possible.

At times, changes in Commission

priorities require alterations in the

scheduling of meeting items. For further

information and to ascertain what, if

any, matters have been added, deleted

or postponed, please contact: The Office

of the Secretary (202) 942–7070.

Dated: May 8, 1995.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11829 Filed 5–9–95 3:45 pm]

BILLING 8010–01–M
Jose Luis CARRERA-DIAZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10337.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

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