alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 In connection with the annual report of Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephanie Y. Jones, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Matthew L. Jones, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Stephanie Y. Jones
 Stephanie Y. Jones
 Chief Executive Officer
 August 4, 2010
 
 /s/ Matthew L. Jones
 Matthew L. Jones
 Chief Financial Officer
 August 4, 2010
Fostering Communication 

A Success Story 

Office of the Ombudsman 

FDIC 
 

Background Information 

Regulatory examination – first quarter of 

2019 

Multi-billion institution 

Long history of satisfactory ratings 
 

 

Disagreement 

Examination Report 

cited a violation that 

management disagreed 

with during the exam 

Management asserted 

that State law provided 

an alternative to the 

issue and the bank was 

operating within those 

parameters 

EIC’s findings on the 

violation were 

supported by the Field 

Supervisor, reviewing 

examiner, and ARD 
 

 

 

Ombudsman as Intermediary 

Bank received the Report and contacted the Regional 

Ombudsman to discuss options for handling the 

disagreement 

The Regional Ombudsman encouraged continued dialogue 

with the Regional Office and was asked to review the bank’s 

draft response letter before it was sent to the Regional Office 

The impacted division immediately contacted the Regional 

Ombudsman and provided updates throughout the review 

process 
 

 

 

 

Outcome 

FDIC Legal staff 

confirmed that 

state law provided 

safe harbor 

Bank decision to 

follow State law 

did not constitute 

a violation 

Revised Report 

issued with the 

disputed violation 

removed 
Lessons Learned
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 1 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 2 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 3 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 4 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 5 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 6 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 7 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 8 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 9 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 10 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 11 of 12
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00195-PRC document 126 filed 03/22/17 page 12 of 12
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1363

AMERICAN MONUMENT FOUNDATION, L.L.C., Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRETT LIVINGSTONE STRONG, Defendant - Appellant, and COMMERCIAL MOVING & RIGGING, INCORPORATED; WILLIAMS EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; WILLIAMS INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-897-A) Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: June 16, 2004 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rachel L. Semanchik, Thomas O. Mason, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. N. Thomas Connally, HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Brett Livingstone Strong appeals from the district court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the magistrate judge’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Am. Monument Found., LLC v. Strong , No. CA-02-897-A (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 12, 2003; entered Feb. 19, 2003). 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-24

)

LAURENCE “LARRY” ROTHSCHILD )

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 24, 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 the offense charged in the single-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 24th day of November 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### In re HAMLIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

In the matter of Elbert B. Hamlin, as executor, etc., of Angelica H. Ambler, deceased. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### PURPURA et al. v. PETERS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 13, 1899.)

Action by Luigi Purpura and others against William R. Peters and others.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs.
Omar ANCHINO-MOSQUERA, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6661.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

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



I, Jason Weber, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Alianza Minerals Ltd.;



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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  February 16, 2016





/s/  Jason Weber

Jason Weber

President and CEO
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13030]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Subsistence Resource Commission Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Subsistence Resource Commission meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Superintendent of Denali National Park and the Chairperson 
of the Subsistence Resource Commission for Denali National Park 
announce a forthcoming meeting of the Denali National Park Subsistence 
Resource Commission.
    The following agenda items will be discussed:
    (1) Call to order by Chair.
    (2) Roll call and confirmation of quorum.
    (3) Superintendent's welcome and introductions.
    (4) Review of SRC function and purpose.
    (5) Minutes of February 17, 1995, meeting: approval.
    (6) Additions and corrections to agenda.
    (7) Old business:
    a. Roster regulations.
    b. Hunting Plan Proposal #7.
    c. Northern access routes to Kantishna.
    d. Customary and traditional determination issues related to the 
Parks Highway.
    e. Park planning.
    f. Agency reports.
    (8) Federal Subsistence Management Program update.
    a. Federal Subsistence Board actions.
    b. Katie John court case update.
    (9) New business:
    a. NPS trapping regulations.
    b. ATV use.
    c. Subsistency workgroup report.
    (10) Public and other agency comments.
    (11) Set time and place of next SRC meeting.
    (12) Adjournment.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, June 16, 1995. The meeting will 
begin at 9 a.m. and end at approximately 6 p.m.

LOCATION: The meeting will be held at the McKinley Village Community 
Center in Denali Park, Alaska.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Martin, Superintendent, Denali 
National Park, PO Box 9, Denali Park, Alaska 99755. Phone (907) 683-
2294.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Subsistence Resource Commissions are 
authorized under Title VIII, Section 808, of the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, Pub. L. 96-487, and operate in 
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.
Paul R. Anderson,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 95-13030 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Letrionna Louise LOW, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-7553.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
|   | 2002   | 2003   | 2004   | 2005   | 2006 |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------|
| $1.189 | $1.008 | $1.004 | $0.990 | $0.973 |
|                     |   |                                                    |
|--------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |                                                    |   |
| Date:  May 11, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Gregory S. Pusey                               |   |
|                     |   | Gregory S. Pusey, President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                     |   |                                                    |   |
|                     |   |                                                    |   |

|                     |   |                                                                             |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |                                                                             |   |
| Date:  May 11, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Jeffrey G. McGonegal                                                    |   |
|                     |   | Jeffrey G. McGonegal, Senior Vice President- Finance and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                     |   |                                                                             |   |
|                     |   |                                                                             |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darren Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered April 29, 1982, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of grand larceny in the second degree to grand larceny in the third degree and vacating the sentence imposed on said grand larceny conviction. As so modified, judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing.

Based upon a review of the record, we conclude that the prosecution failed to present at trial sufficient evidence as a matter of law regarding the value at the time and place of the crime of complainant’s automobile and other alleged stolen property. The only trial testimony on this issue was that of complainant who stated that he purchased the vehicle for $2,100 approximately *IV2*years before the incident, and that the car was in good working order and in fair condition with no dents. No evidence was introduced as to the value of the other stolen property. Under these circumstances, the People did not provide sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that the market value of all the stolen property exceeded $1,500. Therefore, the conviction of grand larceny in the second degree cannot stand *(see,*Penal Law § 155.35; *People v James,*111 AD2d 254; *People v Clark,*91 AD2d 1102; *cf. People v Supino,*64 AD2d 720, *254721). However, the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to establish that the value of the stolen property exceeded $250, and thus supports a conviction of grand larceny in the third degree *(see,*Penal Law § 155.30). Accordingly, we reduce defendant’s conviction of grand larceny from the second degree to the third degree and remit for resentencing on said conviction *(see, People v Whittemore,*65 AD2d 631).

As to defendant’s remaining contention, he failed to object prior to the discharge of the jury to the allegedly repugnant and inconsistent verdicts. At the time he made a motion to set aside the verdict, it was too late to remedy the alleged defect by resubmission to the jury for reconsideration of its verdict *(see, People v Satloff,*56 NY2d 745; *People v Figueroa,*96 AD2d 515). In any event, in view of our modification of the verdict, this contention is moot. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 12

Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges



|                                                                                    |  |                    |     |  |                          |   |     |      |  |   |      |  |  |      |     |  |      |   |     |  |  |   |     | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | --- |  | ------------------------ | - | --- | ---- |  | - | ---- |  |  | ---- | --- |  | ---- | - | --- |  |  | - | --- | 
|                                                                                    |  | Nine Months
Ended  |     |  | Years ended December 31, |  
|(Dollars in millions)                                                               |  | September 30, 2010 |     |  | 2009                     |   |     | 2008 |  |   | 2007 |  |  | 2006 |     |  | 2005 |  
|Earnings:                                                                           |  |                    |     |  |                          |   |     |      |  |   |      |  |  |      |     |  |      |   |     |  |  |   |     | 
|Income from continuing operations before provision for income tax                   |  | $                  | 146 |  |                          | $ | 126 |      |  | $ | 162  |  |  | $    | 234 |  |      | $ | 291 |  |  | $ | 232 | 
|Fixed charges                                                                       |  |                    | 124 |  |                          |   | 175 |      |  |   | 223  |  |  |      | 297 |  |      |   | 353 |  |  |   | 359 | 
|Income from continuing operations before provision for income tax and fixed charges |  | $                  | 270 |  |                          | $ | 301 |      |  | $ | 385  |  |  | $    | 531 |  |      | $ | 644 |  |  | $ | 591 | 
|                                                                                    | 
|Fixed charges:                                                                      |  |                    |     |  |                          |   |     |      |  |   |      |  |  |      |     |  |      |   |     |  |  |   |     | 
|Interest expense                                                                    |  | $                  | 124 |  |                          | $ | 175 |      |  | $ | 223  |  |  | $    | 297 |  |      | $ | 353 |  |  | $ | 359 | 
|                                                                                    | 
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                  |  |                    | 2.2 |  |                          |   | 1.7 |      |  |   | 1.7  |  |  |      | 1.8 |  |      |   | 1.8 |  |  |   | 1.6 | 
|                                                                                    | 



23
#### GEORGE COLON & CO., Respondent, v. ILLINOIS SURETY CO., Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by George Colon & Co. against the- Illinois Surety Company, impleaded with others. N. L. Keaeh, for appellant. H. Asher, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A0 63 2 . PATRI CK LELAN MALLARD v . THE STATE.

Pat ri ck Lel an M al l ard fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal f r o m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er

rev o k i n g h i s p ro b at io n

. A n ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret io n ary ap p eal

, h o wev er, i s req u i red

t o ap p eal a p ro b at i o n rev ocat i o n o rd er. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (5 ); W h i t e v. S ta t e , 2 3 3

Ga. A p p

. 8 7 3 (5 0 5 SE2 d 2 2 8 ) (1 9 9 8 ). M al l ard ’ s fai l u re t o co m p ly wi t h t h e

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re d ep ri v es u s o f j u r i s d i ct io n to co n s i d er t h i s ap p eal

, wh i ch i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/18/2016 November 18, 2016
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-151165on Form S-8 of our report dated June 26, 2009 (which report expressesan unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to theconvenience translation of Renminbi amounts into U.S. dollar amounts in thefinancial statements, and the adoption of the recognition and measurementmethods under Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, “Accountingfor Uncertainty in Income Taxes- An Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109”,effective on January 1, 2007), relating to the consolidated financialstatements and the related financial statement schedule of ChinaEdu Corporationand its subsidiaries and variable interest entities (“the Group”), appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

 

 

 

DeloitteTouche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.

Beijing,the People’s Republic of China

June 26,2009

 

----