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

EXHIBIT 32.1

|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     
|---------------------------------------------
|                                             
|PURSUANT TO                                  
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Theron Resource
Group (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Amended
Annual Report), I, Jerry R. Satchwell, 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 Amended Annual 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 Amended Annual Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 29, 2011

/s/ Jerry R. Satchwell

Jerry R. Satchwell Chief Executive
Officer

---
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC,

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and

OTTO TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

FURTHER TENTATIVE

JURY INSTRUCTION

Below please find another tentative jury instruction that may assist our jury. By NOON

ON NOVEMBER 3, counsel shall please critique (up to six pages total) and by NOON ON

NOVEMBER 7, counsel may submit counter critiques (up to four pages total). Please follow the

same guidelines as to authorities set forth at Docket No. 2010. (The earlier critiques and

counter critiques are still due on their original schedule.) 

An engineer will, through trial and error and application of his or

her professional skills, sharpen his or her skills and accumulate insights

that supplement the skill and know-how otherwise known in his or her

field. When the engineer moves to his or her next job with a new

employer, the engineer cannot be expected to delete such on-the-job

practical lessons from his or her memory and will remain free under

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2078 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

the law to use those practical lessons to the same extent as skill and

know-how otherwise known in the field. The engineer cannot, however,

go further in his new job with a new employer and misappropriate specific

engineering solutions developed by his prior employer, even those

developed by him or her, where such specific solutions qualify as a trade

secret. It is for the jury to decide in each case whether the engineer has

misappropriated a trade secret versus merely used practical lessons from

his prior employment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2078 Filed 10/24/17 Page 2 of 2
EX-33.1
(logo) PHH Mortgage
3000 Leadenhall Road
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054



REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB
SERVICING CRITERIA

PHH Mortgage Corporation (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing
compliance as of December 31, 2007 and for the period from January 1, 2007
through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria
set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "CFR"),
except for criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(ii),
(d)(4)(xv) and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded
are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the
transactions covered by this report (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The
criteria set forth in Section 229.1122 (d)(4)(vii) and (d)(4)(xi) of the CFR are
performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party; however, the
Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes
responsibility for compliance. The transactions covered by this report include
all non-agency loan sale agreements executed after January 1, 2006 as well as
all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting
Party served as servicer (the "Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as
of December 31, 2007 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the
Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Servicing
Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

Deloitte & Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.


PHH Mortgage Corporation

Date: February 28, 2008


/s/ Terence W. Edwards
Terence W. Edwards
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Mark Danahy
Mark Danahy
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

/s/ Martin L. Foster
Martin L. Foster
Senior Vice President - Loan Servicing
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:14-cr-00014-TLS-SLC

)

DERRICK L. THOMAS, also known as )

Derrick Thomas )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF 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 Judge

Susan Collins, on September 21, 2017, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

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 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 charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that 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 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 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 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 Defendant’s plea; and further,

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

adjudged guilty of the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the six-count Indictment, and have

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

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

before Chief 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 21st day of September 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22402-22403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11120]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Supplemental Awards to Current High Risk Youth Demonstration 
Program Grantees

AGENCY: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS.

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: Public notice was given in the Federal Register on April 17, 
1995, Volume 60, No. 73, pages 19276-19277, of the availability of 
supplemental funds to demonstrate the differential effectiveness of 
incorporating an HIV/AIDS prevention curriculum into an on- 
[[Page 22403]] going substance abuse prevention program as compared to 
providing such a curriculum as a stand-alone activity. Applicants 
eligible to apply for supplements are currently funded grantees under 
Module A-High Risk Youth, Module B-Female Adolescents, and Module C-
Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Related Violence Among High Risk Youth of 
CSAP's Substance Abuse Prevention Demonstration Grant Program for High 
Risk Populations. The receipt date for applications given in the notice 
was May 29, 1995. The receipt date for applications has subsequently 
been changed to June 20, 1995.

CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ms. Rose Kittrell, Acting Chief, High 
Risk Youth Branch, Division of Demonstrations for High Risk 
Populations, CSAP, Rockwall II, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; 
telephone (310) 443-0353.

    Dated: April 28, 1995.
Richard Kopanda,
Acting Executive Offede SAMHSA.
[FR Doc. 95-11120 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
**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 0F2002

 

Each of theundersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of OSGAmerica 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-Kof the Partnership for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 (the “PeriodicReport”) accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirementsof 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 PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership. This certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with theprovisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended tobe used for any other purpose.

 

 
| Date:  | March 12,  2008     |   | /s/  Jonathan P. Whitworth |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Jonathan  P. Whitworth   |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
| Date:  | March 12,  2008     |   | /s/  Myles R. Itkin        |
|   | Myles  R. Itkin          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

GLORIA JONES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-14-PPS

v. )

)

HORSESHOE CASINO, SUSPA INC., )

and GASSER CHAIR COMPANY, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Defendants Suspa Inc. and Gasser Chair Company individually filed Stipulations

of Dismissal with Prejudice signed by Jones’ counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). [DE 148, 149.] All claims against Suspa Inc. and Gasser Chair

Company are, therefore, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and all pending motions are

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. 

On January 26, 2015, the action was stayed as to Defendant Horseshoe Casino

due to pending bankruptcy proceedings. [DE 23.] I find that, at this point, the case

against Defendant Horseshoe Casino should be administratively closed until such time

as the bankruptcy proceedings have been concluded or Court action is otherwise

required. Any motion seeking reopening of the case shall state:

(a) the facts and procedural history, including any significant occurrences in

the bankruptcy proceedings;

(b) the issues remaining for determination by this Court;

(c) the potential for settlement, and the status of any settlement discussions;
(d) whether a Rule 16 scheduling conference is requested;

(e) the status of discovery;

(f) whether significant pretrial motion practice, including the filing of

potentially dispositive motions, is anticipated;

(g) the date by which it is reasonably likely that the case would be ready to

proceed to trial; and

(h) the estimated length of trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall

administratively CLOSE this action, subject to reopening on a motion filed in

compliance with this Order.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 31, 2017

_s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11075]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and 
Regulations
[[Page 22249]]

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 185

RIN 3206-AF43


Implementation of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final regulations 
which were published on Friday, February 10, 1995, (60 FR 7891). The 
regulations provide procedures to implement the Program Fraud Civil 
Remedies Act of 1986.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Murray M. Meeker, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, (202) 606-
1980.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 10, 1995, OPM published final 
regulations to implement the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. 
On April 12, 1995, OPM was advised by an official from the West 
Publishing Company that a typographical error had resulted in the 
omission of a portion of one of the sections. This document corrects 
that omission.

Correction

    In rule document 95-3347 beginning on page 7891 in the issue of 
Friday, February 10, 1995, make the following correction:
    On page 7899, in the second column, correct Sec. 185.139(g) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 185.139  Appeal to authority head.

* * * * *
    (g) In reviewing the initial decision, the authority head shall not 
consider any objection that was not raised before the ALJ unless the 
objecting party can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances causing the 
failure to raise the objection.
* * * * *
Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 95-11075 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Order entered January 21, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01616
- CR
CHARLES FREDRICK BEL L, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 219
- 80942
- 2012



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s January 7, 2014 motion to substitute counsel. Franklyn Mickelsen is substituted for Stephanie Hudson as appellant’s counsel of record.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send all correspondence to Franklyn Mickelsen, Broden & Mickelsen, 2600 State Street, Dallas, Texas 75204; telephone: (214) 720

- 9552; telecopier: (214)
720

- 9594.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
John Joseph MERZBACHER, petitioner, v. Bobby P. SHEARIN, et al.; John Joseph Merzbacher, petitioner, v. Bobby P. Shearin, et al.

No. 12-9952.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 12



Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges


<TABLE>

<CAPTION>
                                                                                Six months ended June 30,
Dollars in millions)                                                              1997              1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                                  <C>                <C>
Income:
 Income before provision for income taxes                                     $      39.9        $      36.4
 
  Fixed charges                                                                      65.9               58.7
                                                                           -------------------------------------
  Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges                   $     105.8        $     95.1
                                                                           =====================================

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                             $      64.2        $      57.0
  Preferred stock dividends                                                            1.7                1.7
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                                               $      65.9        $      58.7
                                                                           =====================================

Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed
  charges to fixed charges                                                             1.61               1.62
                                                                           =====================================


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Andrew Godfrey, Chief Executive Officer of First Quantum Ventures, Inc., (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(1) The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.




By:
/s/ Andrew GodfreyAndrew GodfreyChief Executive Officer


Date: March 30, 2011











This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-20

)

JAMES R. COUGILL )

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 November 10, 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 charges 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 the offenses charged in Counts 2 and 3 the four-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 10th day of November 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2