alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices of meetings published under

the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.

L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

26923

Vol. 60, No. 97

Friday, May 19, 1995

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., Wednesday,

May 24, 1995.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria,

Virginia 22314–3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Closed

Meetings.

2. Administrative Action under Section

206 of the Federal Credit Union Act. Closed

pursuant to exemptions (8) and (9)(A)(ii).

3. Administrative Actions under Section

205 of the Federal Credit Union Act. Closed

pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii), and

(9)(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board,

Telephone (703) 518–6304.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–12480 Filed 5–17–95; 3:05 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–M
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

The undersigned, Juanming Fang, the ChiefExecutive Officer of Emo Capital Corp. (the "Company") hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended July 31st, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Date: November 11, 2009

*/s/ _Juanming Fang__*Juanming FangChief Executive Officer

* *
[No. 39853-9-I.

Division One.

October 20, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robert James Hill, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-00485-3, Janice Niemi, J., entered December 6, 1996. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### In re BERGDORF.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

In the matter of Herman Bergdorf, deceased. No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. Order filed. Memorandum per curiam. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1012.
EX-35.2
(logo) AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company

Depositor: Structured Asset Securities Corporation
           745 Seventh Avenue 8th Floor
           New York, NY 10019

Trustee:   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
           9062 Old Annapolis Road
           Columbia, MD 21045

Securities Administrator:

Subject:        Annual Officer's Certification
Fiscal Year:    2007
Securitization: LMT 2007-9

I, E. Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora
Loan Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the
Calendar Year 2007:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period
beginning on the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting
period") and of its performance under the Agreement for such period has been
made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects
throughout such reporting period.

Certified by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC



By: /s/ E. Todd Whittemore

Name: E. Todd Whittemore
Title: Executive Vice President



(logo) EQUAL HOUSING
LENDER
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                 0000712843
<NAME>                Elxsi Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>          1
<CURRENCY>            USD

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                          957,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 4,614,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    229,000
<INVENTORY>                                  12,639,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             24,187,000
<PP&E>                                       33,900,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               92,295,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        19,164,000
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             4,000
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                   65,656,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 92,295,000
<SALES>                                      76,975,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             76,975,000
<CGS>                                        61,887,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                72,304,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 65,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              988,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               4,715,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1,925,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2,790,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2,790,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.58


</TABLE>
Nina YODER, petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al.

No. 13-424.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL 1997 AS FILED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         192,887
<SECURITIES>                                    71,126
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,883
<INVENTORY>                                    222,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               631,686
<PP&E>                                         183,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 744,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          196,110
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       388,124
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   744,111
<SALES>                                        264,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,385
<CGS>                                          164,098 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  164,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (6,670)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,039)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,039)<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>MINORITY INTEREST OF 92,000 IS DEDUCTED TO AFTER-TAX LOSS IN ARRIVING AT
NET LOSS OF 13,039,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-15-00370-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

JAIME GARCIA, D/B/A RIO PILON 

PIT, CYNTHIA GARCIA D/B/A 

BRAVO PIT, EDMUNDO RAMOS 

TELLEZ, AURELIA GARZA GARCIA, 

ANDRES DE JESUS OLVERA MUNIZ, 

ALFA DE LA LUZ HERNANDEZ 

PADRON, AND FRANCISCO 

JAVIER RUIZ GOMEZ, Appellants,

v.

HIDALGO COUNTY IRRIGATION #6, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 398th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
2

Appellants appealed a judgment entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo 

County, Texas. On August 13, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the 

notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e). See

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal 

with the district clerk's office and this Court within 15 days from the date of that notice. 

On September 30, 2015, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been 

corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not 

cured within ten days. Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or 

corrected the defect.

An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to 

comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified 

time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered the documents on 

file, and appellant’s failure to correct the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should 

be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want 

of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

19th day of November, 2015.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A1951. CONNIE’S FLOWERS & CREATIVE EVENTS et al. v. STATE

COURT MEMBERS OF DEKALB COUNTY et al.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by

this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an

enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See

also Court of Appeals Rule 13. As of the date of this order, the appellant’s brief and

enumeration of errors still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed

abandoned and is hereby ORDERED dismissed. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/25/2014

July 25, 2014
Eddie Lee JINKS, petitioner, v. John Doe MATTHEWS, et al.

No. 13-6729.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13084]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. SA95-4-000]

Lee 8 Storage Partnership; Petition for Adjustment

May 23, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 5, 1995, Lee 8 Storage Partnership (Lee 8) 
filed pursuant to section 502(c) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 
(NGPA), a petition for adjustment from Sec. 284.123(b)(1)(ii) of the 
Commission's regulations to permit Lee 8 to use its tariff on file with 
the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) for services performed 
pursuant to NGPA section 311.
    In support of its petition, Lee states that it is an intrastate gas 
storage service in the State of Michigan and is a gas utility subject 
to the jurisdiction of the MPSC. The sole operating asset of Lee 8 
Storage Field. The Lee 8 Storage Field is located adjacent to the Lee 3 
Storage Field, which is owned and operated by Michigan Gas Utilities, a 
Michigan local distribution company (MGU) and may be directly 
interconnected with the facilities of MGU at minimal cost. Lee 8's 
storage rates are subject to regulation by the MPSC. Lee 8 anticipates 
providing section 311 storage service on behalf of interstate pipeline 
companies or local distribution companies served by interstate pipeline 
companies for a charge not to exceed the rates on file with the MPSC, 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum             Maximum     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Based on 100 day firm storage  $0.25 per Mcf       $1.75 per Mcf.    
 service.                                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations applicable to this proceeding are found in subpart 
K of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure. Any person 
desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of the 
Commission's rules of practice and Procedures. All motions must be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission within 15 days after 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The petition for 
adjustment is on file with the Commission and is available for public 
inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13084 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ACR Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony R. Maresca, the Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, 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 ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by ACRGroup, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to Section 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 Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Pharmos Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
W. Cook, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ ROBERT W. COOK
                                            -------------------------------
                                            Robert W. Cook
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            August 12, 2002


                                       20
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Scott D. Peters, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of G REIT, 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) 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 c) 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 the registrant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
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/
    SCOTT D. PETERSScott D. PetersChief Financial Officer Date: April 28, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998  
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         569,737
<SECURITIES>                                 2,833,331
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,132,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,687,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,911,393
<PP&E>                                       6,796,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,240,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,022,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       230,874
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,986,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,240,006
<SALES>                                     12,806,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,806,230
<CGS>                                        9,815,904
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,815,904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,290,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             522,198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                205,581
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            162,281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   162,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | With      a copy to: |
|--------|----------------------|

----

----

----

----

| PHARMOS      LTD.                  |
|-----------------------------------------|
| By:      ______________________         |
|                                    |
|                                    |
|                                    |
|                                    |
| PHARMOS      CORPORATION           |
| By:      ______________________         |
|                                    |
|                                    |
|                                    |
|                                    |
| REPERIO      PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.  |
| By:      Silvia Noiman, PhD,    MBA     |

----
#### Mitchell SCATES, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, RespondentAppellee.

No. 04-7066.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 23, 2004.

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Principal Attorney, Carpenter, Chartered, Topeka, KS, for Claimant-Appellant

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Mitchell Scates, Jr.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs