alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      99.1


Annual
      Servicer’s Certificate








Standard
      & Poor’s Ratings Services


55
      Water
      Street


New
      York,
      New York 10041


Attention:
      Asset-Backed Surveillance Group





Fitch
      Ratings


One
      State
      Street Plaza


New
      York,
      New York 10004


Attention:
      Structured Finance





Moody’s
      Investors Service Inc.


99
      Church
      Street


New
      York,
      New York 10007


Attention:
      Structured Finance





Wachovia
      Bank, National Association


401
      South
      Tryon Street


Charlotte,
      North Carolina 28288


Attention:
      Structured Finance Trust Services





SLC
      Student Loan Trust 2005-3


c/o
      Wilmington Trust Company


Rodney
      Square North, 1100 North Market Street


Wilmington,
      Delaware 19890-0001


Attention:
      Corporate Trust Administration





As
      an
      officer of The Student Loan Corporation, the Master Servicer of SLC Student
      Loan


Trust
      2005-3, I hereby certify that:





(a)
            a
                review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar
                year and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been
                made
                under my supervision, and




(b)
            to
                the best of my knowledge, based on such a review, the Servicer has
                fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement for
                the period December 15, 2005 through December 31, 2005, and
                there have been no known defaults in the fulfillment of such
                obligations.











/s/
      Daniel P. McHugh     March
      31, 2006


Daniel
      P.
      McHugh        Date


Chief
      Financial Officer


The
      Student Loan Corporation, as Servicer
Douglas Blaine MATTHEWS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 13-6021.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 22-2153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARK JORDAN,

 Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2:94-cr-00524-001)

District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

Present: JORDAN, BIBAS, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant in the above-entitled case having 

been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, it is hereby

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing by the panel is granted. The Clerk is directed 

to file the amended opinion contemporaneously with this order. The revisions to the 

opinion are at pages 15 and 16. As the revisions do not affect the disposition of the 

appeal, the judgment will remain as filed.

The petition for rehearing filed Appellant also having been submitted to all the 

other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service and a majority of the 

judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing by the Court en banc is denied.
BY THE COURT,

s/ 

Circuit Judge

Date: March 25, 2024

JK/cc: All Counsel of Record
**EXHIBIT 32**

August 14, 2006

Via EDGAR

Securities and Exchange CommissionJudiciary Plaza450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:      Certification pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MesaOffshore Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individualcapacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)         The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Trust as of the dates and for the periodspresented.

Theabove certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
|          | JPMORGAN CHASE  BANK, N.A.,        |
|----------|------------------------------------|
|     | Trustee for Mesa Offshore Trust    |
|     | /s/ MIKE ULRICH               |
|     | Mike Ulrich                        |
| * * | *Vice President and Trust Officer* |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10247

Summary Calendar

 

LONZIE WILSON, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

No First Name STEPHENS, Assistant Warden;

R. EASON, Major,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:96-CV-153-X

- - - - - - - - - -

April 2, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lonzie Wilson, Jr., # 711254, has filed an application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). By moving for IFP, Wilson is

challenging the district court’s certification that IFP should
No. 97-10247

-2-

not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good

faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Wilson has alleged that Stephens and Eason were aware that

Inmate Jones was mentally disturbed and on medication. He has

not specifically alleged that they were aware of facts which

would have put them on notice that Jones presented a substantial

risk of serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994). Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order

certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Wilson’s

request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as

frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

We caution Wilson that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Wilson is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT
32


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 on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Cambridge
Holdings, Ltd. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, each of
the undersigned Gregory Pusey and Jeffrey G. McGonegal, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and
belief:




(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.






Dated:  February
16,
2010








/s/
      Gregory Pusey
              Gregory
      Pusey, President and Chief Executive
Officer









Dated:  February
16,
2010




/s/
      Jeffrey G. McGonegal
                Jeffrey
      G. McGonegal, Senior Vice President-Finance
      and Chief Financial Officer


* * * *
*








A signed
original of the 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.
#### Scrutchings *v.*The State.

*Assault and Battery.*

(Decided May 16, 1907.

43 South. 962.)

*Indictment and Information; Election as to Gounts.*— Where there are two counts in the indictment, one charging assault and battery and the other charging assault and battery with weapon, evidence as to each offense may be offered and a conviction may be had upon each count; the doctrine of election has no application to such a condition.

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. W. H. Thomas.

Ed Scrutchings Avas convicted of assault and assault and battery, under an indictment charging assault and assault and battery in one count and an assault and battery Avith a weapon in the other count, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for State. —No brief came to the Reporter.

TYSON, C. J.

The indictment contains íavo counts. The first charges a simple assault and battery, and the second an assault and battery with a brick. It was permissible for the prosecution to offer evidence in support *2of the two distinct offenses charged, and to obtain a conviction upon each of the counts. And, when such evidence is introduced, there is no room for the application of the doctrine of election, which was attempted to be invoked in this *case.*— Untreiner *v.*State, 146 Ala. 133, 41 South. 170. It follows, therefore, that the motion to exclude the testimony, offered by the prosecution, of the assault and battery with a brick, was properly overruled, and that the affirmative charge requested by defendant was correctly refused.

The judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Haralson, Simpson, and Denson, JJ., concur.
# C_2008110EN.01001801.xml

| 1.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/18

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4784 — Suez Environnement/SITA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 110/05)

On 17 April 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4784. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4784. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
        DIVIDENDS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND 1997
                         (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>

<S>                                              <C>            <C>
                                                     1998           1997
                                                 --------       --------
                                                        (Unaudited)       

Earnings:
Net Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 174,801      $  131,333 
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . 96,263          72,739 
    Fixed charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .383,272         364,296 
  Less:
    Capitalized interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,418          23,455 
                                                   -------         -------
  Earnings as adjusted (A). . . . . . . . . . . .$ 625,918       $ 544,913 
                                                   =======         =======

Preferred dividend requirements . . . . . . . . .$   8,494      $    8,197 
Ratio of income before provision
    for income taxes to net income. . . . . . . .      155%            155% 
                                                  --------       ---------
  Preferred dividend factor on pretax
    basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   13,166          12,705 
                                                  --------       ---------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  312,051         314,086 
  Capitalized interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . .   28,418          23,455 
  Interest factor of rents. . . . . . . . . . . .   42,803          26,755 
                                                   -------         -------
  Fixed charges as adjusted (B) . . . . . . . . .  383,272         364,296 
                                                   -------         -------
Fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 396,438       $ 377,001 
                                                   =======         =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    (A) divided by (B). . . . . . . . . . . . . .     1.63x           1.50x 
                                                      ====            ====

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    and preferred stock dividends
    (A) divided by (C). . . . . . . . . . . . . .     1.58x           1.45x 
                                                      ====            ====
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00047-TLS-SLC

)

ALAN CRISTIAN CHIPREZ-GARCIA )

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 August 14, 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 charge 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 offense charged in Count 1 of the 10-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 14th day of August 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Exhibit 32Certification 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 accompanying
Quarterly Report of Farmers Capital Bank Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as
officer of Farmers Capital Bank Corporation, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: Aug-7-06 | /s/ G. Anthony Busseni
|-------------- | ----------------------
|               | G. Anthony Busseni    
|               | President and CEO     

|Date: 8-7-06 | /s/ C Douglas Carpenter                  
|------------ | -----------------------------------------
|             | C. Douglas Carpenter                     
|             | Senior Vice President, Secretary, and CFO

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Farmers Capital Bank Corporation
and will be retained by Farmers Capital Bank Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2003 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to remove 

the 100 percent tariff imposed on Roquefort cheese. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mr. OTTER (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to remove the 100 percent tariff imposed on 

Roquefort cheese. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF 100 PERCENT TARIFF ON ROQUE4 FORT CHEESE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter III of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by striking heading 9903.02.30. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Chapter 4 of such 

9 Schedule is amended— 
2 

•HR 2003 IH 

1 (1) by striking footnote 1 to subheading 

2 0406.40.20; and 

3 (2) by striking footnote 1 to subheading 

4 0406.40.40. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Xiao Ping Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.,
and Zong Yun Zhou, Chief Financial Officer of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC., certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SORL AUTO PARTS,
INC. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.


Dated:
      August 13, 2009/s/
      Xiao Ping ZhangXiao
      Ping Zhang
              Chief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Zong Yun ZhouZong
      Yun ZhouChief
      Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12645]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army


Meeting of the Industry/Government Working Group for Performance 
Criteria of Military Clothing and Equipment

AGENCY: Army Soldiers System Command, DoD.

ACTION: Meeting announcement.

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

SUMMARY: The Industry/Government Working for Performance Criteria of 
Military Clothing and Equipment will meet on Tuesday, June 27, 1995 at 
the Soldiers System Command, Natick Research, Development and 
Engineering Center, Natick, MA. The Comfort and Durability committees 
will meet separately at 9 and then together as a group at 1.

    The purpose of the meeting is to identify performance criteria and 
test methodology that will be used to measure comfort and durability of 
military clothing and individual equipment. The U.S. Army is interested 
in consumer and market research data in the areas of comfort and 
durability of fabrics, clothing and equipment, as well as related test 
methods, standards, specifications, or handbooks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carole A. Faria, Textile Technologist, at (508) 651-5460.

    Dated: May 12, 1995.
Carole A. Faria,
Textile Technologist.
[FR Doc. 95-12645 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-26-TLS 

 ) 

PATRICK DAVIS ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 50], filed on June 21, 2017. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 50] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject 

to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 

One (1) of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such 

offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on July 7, 2017. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### SWEENEY, Appellant, v. O’DWYER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by John Sweeney against Edward F. O’Dwyer. R. Krause, for appellant. W. M. Seabury, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See 45 Misc. Rep. 43, 90 N. Y. Supp. 806.
#### SIEGMAN, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN JOCKEY CLUB, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 17, 1899.)

Action by Elizabeth B. Siegman against the Brooklyn Jockey Glub.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.