alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00819-CR

Ex parte Robert Austin

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GV-002907, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

Robert Austin applied for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to prevent his extradition

to Kansas. The writ issued and, after a hearing, the district court denied the relief sought. In his only

point of error, Austin contends that a delay in taking him before a magistrate denied him due process

of law. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. We will affirm.

The governor’s extradition warrant was issued on June 5, 2000. According to the

testimony, appellant was incarcerated in Travis County on June 16, 2000, to serve sentences imposed

in unrelated Texas prosecutions. Appellant received a copy of the extradition warrant on June 20.

Appellant completed his Texas sentences on September 29, 2000, after which he continued to be held

on the extradition warrant. He was taken before a judge and advised of his rights regarding

extradition on October 9, 2000. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.13, § 10 (West 1979). He

subsequently filed his habeas corpus application complaining of the delay between the expiration of

his Texas sentences on September 29 and the October 9 appearance before the judge. In his

testimony at the hearing, appellant did not claim to have been harmed by this delay.
2

Article 51.13, section 10 provides that a person arrested on an extradition warrant

“shall first be taken forthwith before a judge” to be advised of his rights. Id. Appellant also refers

us to the statutory requirement that an arrested person be taken before a magistrate “without

unnecessary delay.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 14.06(a), 15.17(a) (West Supp. 2001).

Appellant cites no authority holding that any of these statutes imposes a specific time limit within

which a person arrested on an extradition warrant must be taken before a magistrate.

Once the governor of the asylum state has granted extradition, a court considering

release on habeas corpus is limited to a determination of whether the extradition documents are

facially in order, whether the applicant has been charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether

the applicant is the person named in the request for extradition, and whether the applicant is a

fugitive. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 288-89 (1978); State ex rel. Holmes v. Klevenhagen,

819 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The court is without authority to consider equitable

issues during the habeas corpus hearing. Holmes v. Klevenhagen, 819 S.W.2d at 543.

Appellant does not, and did not below, question the regularity of the extradition

documents, his identity as the person charged with a crime in Kansas and named in the extradition

request, or his status as a fugitive. On this record, there is no basis for disturbing the district court’s

order.
3

The order is affirmed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: May 31, 2001

Do Not Publish
# C_2010206EN.01000401.xml

| 30.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/4

---

Notice of creditors’ meeting on the moratorium of Landsbanki Íslands hf. pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions

2010/C 206/04

A ruling by the Reykjavík District Court, pronounced on 27 November 2009, authorised the extension of the moratorium granted to Landsbanki Íslands hf., Reg. No 540291-2259, Austurstræti 16, 101 Reykjavík, which was originally granted on 5 December 2008, to 10.00 a.m. on 26 August 2010.

Kristinn Bjarnason, Supreme Court Attorney, serves as appointee for the moratorium of Landsbanki Íslands hf.

In accordance with the above, and with reference to Articles 13 and 14 of the Act on Bankruptcy etc., No 21/1991, cf. Article 2 of Act No 129/2008, a meeting of the bank’s creditors is hereby announced, to be held on Monday, 23 August 2010, at 9.00 a.m. at Hilton Hotel Nordica, Suðurlandsbraut 2, Reykjavík.

Furthermore, notice is hereby given that the Reykjavík District Court will convene in the courthouse on Lækjartorg Square in Reykjavík to review the moratorium on Thursday, 26 August 2010, at 10.00 a.m., as the moratorium granted to the bank by the ruling of the District Court expires at that time.

All parties with claims against Landsbanki Íslands hf. are entitled to attend the meeting. Further details of the meeting and the agenda will be published on the website of Landsbanki Íslands hf., http://www.lbi.is

Kristinn BJARNASON,

Supreme Court Attorney

Supreme Court Attorney

---
Exhibit 32.2




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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Urban Barns Foods Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Meikelham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 21st day of June, 2010.





/s/  Daniel Meikelham


Daniel Meikelham


Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
! "!#$%&$#'!#(&)*(#"  +(#&"!##,"!# &	"-.#!$%/000000000000000000000000000

&+$!1$#!0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  2%!+$($ 3	 2 3	 34%$(!#5!%,$%%6"7 2%!+3$#-''8""8,,/000000000002%!+3(&.#!

4	292:;94 4%$(!#!%,$%%6".&*'((!7

&+$!1$#!*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

NTPDFC>SE@AC>EBUVW=XYZQ>=[DF\>  GHIJ]ILDM

UVW=X^_>?\>FC`YZQ>=[DF\>   GHIJ]IL[M

 *%*'&(00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  

64&"*#4%$(!#!%,.&"*#.&*'((!7

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJaLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JadLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFUeDO=QDccGHIJaLTM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJdLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JadLfM

SEP>QW>?APD@AP>g?ETZC@SE@ABACD@AEF  GHIJ]aLDM

UeDOUZf_AccAEFGdhJR

  $%4&"*#$'i0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

4&"*#&'($!"	!"#!(-.&"*#&%$#"*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(/

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JaHLDM

W>QAc@AF\LSEXO>FVF@>?>c@M   GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JaHLfM

NOO?EPDQN_>FT_>F@c@E>FZ_>?D@>TD\?ACZQ@Z?DQO?ETZC@cGHIJHLDMlGHIJRLDM

mSEFnjD@>?ADQN\?ACZQ@Z?DQYZQ>=[DF\>oGHIJHLfMLRM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

  $%$'-(/ 4&"*#-(/< #"i000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*%*'&(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

pqrstuvwsxyqz{{|

}

~qrv|qrvsx



}

~~~uqrsxy|xrsv
Exhibit 24.01

                           CONSENT OF ANGELL & DEERING


To the Board of Directors
of ProtoSource Corporation

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registrations
Statements of ProtoSource Corporation and any amendments thereto (1) File No.
333-78497 on Form S-8; (2) File No. 333-78437 on Form S-8, and (3) File No.
333-80773 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 23, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheet of ProtoSource Corporation as of December 31, 2000
and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and changes in
stockholders' equity for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, which
report appears or is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2000 Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of ProtoSource Corporation.


/s/ Angell & Deering
-----------------
Angell & Deering

April 12, 2001
Order entered July 7, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00195-CR

VINCENT BERNARD JENKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-53064-V

ORDER

The reporter’s record and the original plea agreement in this case reflect appellant 

pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. On June 3, 2014, this Court ordered the Dallas 

County District Clerk to file a supplemental record that contained the State’s notice to enhance 

the punishment range. The District Clerk filed a supplemental record that contained the plea 

agreement to the probation revocation, but not the notice of intent to enhance punishment.

We ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether the record can be 

supplemented with the State’s notice to seek enhancement on punishment. We ORDER the trial 

court to transmit a supplemental record containing the written findings of fact, any supporting

documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this 

order.
The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Strategic Storage Trust, Inc., (the Company), in connection with the Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |     |  |                                                                                       
|------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael S. McClure                                                                
|                    |  |     |  | Michael S. McClure Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial
Officer)
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 Fidelity Aviation Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, John Schoenauer, 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/John SchoenauerJohn Schoenauer, Chief Financial Officer May 13, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Arturo VALADEZ-CORONADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40864

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*399Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Arturo Valadez-Corona-do (Valadez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Valadez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
```

[Federal Register: January 20, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 2701]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ja04-26]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, February 20, 2004.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., Washington, DC, Room 1012.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-1188 Filed 1-15-04; 11:22 am]
BILLING CODE 6351 01 M
```
Exhibit32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Fritz L. LaPorte, in his capacity as Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of MAKO Surgical Corp., hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



(i)

        the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and




(ii)

        the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MAKO Surgical Corp.




May 7, 2009

        /s/ Fritz L. LaPorteFritz L. LaPorteSenior Vice President of Finance and Administration,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of MAKO Surgical Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





---
#### Nella Manko, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent.

Decided March 29, 2012

Reported below, 2011 NY Slip Op 81074(U).

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*CPLR 5511, 5601).
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, David E. Snyder, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
his 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
Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 10, 2010



/s/ David E. SnyderDavid E. Snyder Chief Financial Officer
#### Moises NAVARRO-SOQUI, aka Moises Navarro aka Jose Manuel Cota, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76126.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 2, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 13, 2010.

Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Martinez Goldsby & Associates, Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*167Before: PREGERSON, HALL, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Petitioner’s petition for rehearing is hereby GRANTED. The memorandum disposition and dissent filed on January 20, 2010, are hereby withdrawn. The new memorandum disposition submitted concurrently with this order shall be filed.

MEMORANDUM **

An immigration judge found Moisés Navarro-Soqui (“Navarro-Soqui”) removable as an aggravated felon due to his conviction under Cal.Penal Code § 288(c)(1) and ordered him removed to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the immigration judge and dismissed Navarro-Soqui’s appeal. Navarro-Soqui petitions this court for review. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition.

In determining whether a state criminal conviction constitutes an aggravated felony under federal law, this court applies the categorical approach set out in *Taylor v. United States,*495 U.S. 575, 599-602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). We recently held that Cal.Penal Code § 288(c)(1) is not a categorical match with the generic crime of sexual abuse of a minor. *United States v. Castro,*607 F.3d 566 (9th Cir.2010). Accordingly, Navarro-Soqui’s conviction under this statute is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), and he is not removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### In the Matter of Sarah A., an Infant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Wayne A., Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 653]-

*1294Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered January 4, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order denied the motion of respondent to vacate a default order of fact-finding and disposition terminating his parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the order entered January 18, 2007 is vacated, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for a hearing on the petition.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order denying his motion “to Reopen a Finding by Default Terminating Parental Rights” with respect to his daughter based upon findings that he abandoned and permanently neglected her. We agree with the father that Family Court erred in denying his motion. We conclude that the court violated the father’s fundamental right to due process by failing to conduct either a fact-finding hearing or “inquest” before making its findings of abandonment and permanent neglect, regardless of the father’s default status on the scheduled hearing date. Specifically, we note that “[a]ll proceedings to terminate parental rights . . . must include a fact finding hearing where the Judge of the Family Court must determine that the parent is guilty of some fault, either lack of visitation and contact in the case of abandonment, or lack of planning in the case of permanent neglect” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 52A, Social Services Law § 384-b, at 258). Here, although a fact-finding hearing was scheduled, no hearing was conducted when the father did not appear. Indeed, petitioner offered no evidence at the scheduled fact-finding hearing to support its petition, and the record thus is devoid of any evidence that the father “is guilty of some fault” to support any such determination by the court *(id.),*or that petitioner engaged in the requisite diligent efforts to strengthen the relationship between the father and his daughter *(see Matter of Kyle K.,*49 AD3d 1333, 1335 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 715 [2008]; *see also*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]). We therefore reverse the order, grant the father’s motion, vacate the default order of fact-finding and disposition, and remit the matter to Family Court for a hearing on the petition.

With respect to the remaining contentions of the father, we conclude that he failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced *1295by his attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance *(see Matter of James R.,*238 AD2d 962, 963 [1997]), and that there is nothing in the record to support his contention that the Law Guardian was ineffective. Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: November 18, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 222)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 69598]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18no02-114]



[[Page 69598]]



COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 4


Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors;
Exemption From Requirement To Register for CPOs of Certain Pools and
CTAs Advising Such Pools

Correction

    In proposed rule document 02-28820 beginning on page 68785 in the
issue of Wednesday November 13, 2002, make the following correction:
    On page 68785, in the third column, in the DATES section, in the
second line, `` January 13, 2002'' should read ``January 13, 2003''.

[FR Doc. C2-28820 Filed 11-15-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 quarterly report of Centaurus Resources Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert C. Weaver, Jr., 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) 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
28th day of December, 2007.


/s/ Robert C. Weaver, Jr.
------------------------------
Robert C. Weaver, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer