alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NationsBanc Mortgage Corporation
205 Park Club Lane
P.O. Box 9000
Buffalo, NY 14231-9000

(LOGO)
NationsBank

Officer's Certificate

Pursuant  to the  terms of the  Servicing  Agreement,  the  undersigned  officer
certifies to the following:


All hazard (or mortgage  impairment if  applicable),  flood,  or other  casualty
insurance and primary mortgage guaranty insurance premiums, taxes, ground rents,
assessments,  and other charges have been paid in connection  with the Mortgaged
Properties;


Each officer has reviewed the activities and performance of the  Seller/Servicer
during the preceding calendar year and to the best of each officer's  knowledge,
based on such review, the  Seller/Servicer  has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement throughout the year.

Certified By:     Judy M. Kamens
                  Officer

A subsidiary of NationsBank Corporation
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT

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 Oro Volcanico Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Francis Mailhot, President 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 November 2007.

 

/s/ Francis Mailhot

Name: Francis Mailhot

Title: President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### George Johnson *v.*The State.

1. Newly-discovered Evidence, if merely cumulative, is not cause for a new trial.

2. New Trial.—When an application for a new trial is based on evidence discovered since the trial, it should show why the evidence could not, with proper diligence, have been discovered in time for the trial, and that it will probably change the result in case a new trial is granted.

Appeal from the District Court of Denton. Tried below before the Hon. J. A. Carroll.

No brief for the appellant.

*H. H. Boone,*Attorney General, and *W. B. Dunham,*for the State.

Ector, P. J.

The court, we think, properly overruled the defendant’s application for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The newly-discovered evidence was merely cumulative. The motion does not present to *457the court any reason why it might not have been discovered sooner, by the use of proper diligence on the part of the defendant. One of the nine statutory grounds for a new trial is : "Where new testimony, material to the defendant, has been discovered since the trial. A motion for new trial based on this ground shall be governed by the same rules as those which regulate civil suits.” Code Cr. Proc., Art. 672.

Newly-discovered evidence, in order to entitle a party to a new trial, must not be merely cumulative. It must be shown why it was not discovered before the trial, and that it would probably change the result on another trial. *Latham*v. *Selkirk,*11 Texas, 321; *Sand*v. *Miller,*7 Texas, 465; *Spillars*v. *Curray,*10 Texas, 143; *Foster*v. *Speer,*22 Texas, 226; *Campbell*v. *The State,*29 Texas, 490; *Koontz*v. *The State,*41 Texas, 572.

The only other question presented by the record is whether or not the court below correctly charged the law applicable to the case.

Price, the person upon whom the assault is alleged in the indictment to have been made, was at Harrison’s mill, in Denton county. One Buck Payne and the defendant were friends, and went to the mill at the time Price was there. A difficulty occurred between Payne and Price. It is evident, from the testimony as shown in the record, that Payne provoked the difficulty, that he was the aggressor, and that he fired the first shot at Price. His purpose in shooting at Price cannot be doubtful. Price returned the fire, when the defendant shot at Price as he was advancing upon Payne.

In the light of the evidence we find no error in the charge of the court to the jury calculated to injure the rights of the defendant. The defendant had the benefit of a charge upon aggravated and simple assault. We see no error in the record of which the accused can justly complain.

*Affirmed.*
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DANIEL J. SHELLEY, JOHN M. ROWLEY, AND SAM H. LAMANTIA (LA MANTIA) 

CITATION: 22 Agric. Dec. 141 

DOCKET NUMBER: 96 

DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1963 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

NOTE: SOMETIMES SPELLED AS LAMANTIA AND SOMETIMES AS LA MANTIA 

(No. 8187) 

In re DANIEL J. SHELLEY, JOHN M. ROWLEY, AND SAM H. LAMANTIA. CEA Docket No. 

96. Decided February 21, 1963. 

Stay Order 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

STAY ORDER

In this proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Chapter 1), 

complainant and also respondent Rowley have filed petitions for reconsideration 

of the decision and order entered January 30, 1963 (22 Agric. Dec. 8 (22 A.D. 

8)). Respondents Shelley and LaMantia have not filed petitions for 

reconsideration and 

have indicated a desire to have the sanctions against them go into effect as 

prescribed by the order of January 30, 1963. Complainant has not requested a 

stay of sanctions pending action upon the complainant's petition for 

reconsideration, but respondent Rowley has asked for a stay of the sanction 

against him. 

Accordingly, the order as to respondent Rowley is stayed pending further 

order in the proceeding but the order as to respondents Shelley and LaMantia 

shall become effective as ordered on January 30, 1963, namely, on March 1, 1963. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
AIG Financial Products Corp. ~0 ll3nbury K<•ml, Wilton CT OllR'l7 

(20J i222-4700 t800) 243-SW:\P 

rJx (201) 222-47XO 

August 21, 2008 

David A. Stawick 

Secretary 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 2ls1 Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

sccretarv@dlc. gov 

c 

COMMENT 

. . Received CFTC 

Records Section 

?Jfl/zl/o g 

Re: Request to Exempt Certain Over-the-Counter Swaps From Certain of the 

Requirements Imposed by Commission Regulation 35.2, Pursuant to the Auth01ity in 

Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act 

Dear Mr. Stawick: 

V'! 

rq 

n 

::~ 

I 

. --l 

;:'~1 

-

:-i 

AIG Financial Products Corp. ("AIG-FP") writes this letter in support of the request by 

the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME'') and the Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT") 

for an exemption that would enable them to provide clearing services for certain Overthe-Counter ("OTC") cash settled agriculture swaps. The Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission ("CFTC") sought comments on the requested exemption in a notice 

published on July 7. 2008 on page 38403 of the Federal Register (the "Release"). 

AIG-FP is a derivatives dealer that, among other things, enters into OTC swaps with 

respect to a broad range of commodities, including agricultural commodities, as well as 

commodity indexes. AIG-FP is also a co-sponsor of the 00\v .lones-AIG Commodity 

I d n SM h' I . I d . I I d' . ex· , w tc 1 tnc u es agncu tura commo tttes. 

AIGFP would like to express support for this proposal, for the following reasons: 

Financial lnte~Zritv: By providing standardized and collateralized counterparty credit for 

such swaps, this clearing function should provide the availability of greater credit 

protection to all market participants and should therefore enhance the usefulness of such 

swaps in risk management. This in tum should allow increased mitigation of both market 

and credit risk by market participants, which should improve hedgers' ability to manage 

their businesses. Clearing may also provide hedging opportunities tor commercial 

entities that have previously found it difticult to hedge their exposure to ptice changes 

due to credit and margin constraints. 

... i "'-' 

·: r-r-1 

:"1:? .. "' ; i ..__ . 

"::: 
Liquidity and Transparency: The cnhancctlusefulncss of the OTC swaps which should 

result from the proposed clearing and margining mechanism should improve liquidity and 

transparency in the agricultural markets for both OTC and futures transactions. Market 

participants should therefore have an enhanced ability to enter into and to liquidate OTC 

sw·aps as well as futures transactions, thereby facilitating the hedging of their commercial 

exposures. 

Sincerely, 

Jason 

;rrDeSantis, \)~Executive ~ 

Vice President 

AIG Financial Products Corp.
Roger Dale MEDFORD, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-5981.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco MACIAS-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40620

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.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, 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 Francisco Macias-Rocha 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). Macias-Rocha 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 *409the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: HARNEY, BURNS INC., JOHN T. FONTANA, ROBERT O. INGAL, AND A. JAMES COMENZO 

DOCKET NUMBER: 127 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 127 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Acting Secretary of 

Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Harney, Burns Inc., 

John T. Fontana, 

Robert O. Ingal, and 

A. James Comenzo 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges Harney, Burns Inc. and John T. Fontana, Robert O. 

Ingal, and A. James Comenzo, President, Vice President and Secretary-Treasurer, 

respectively, of the corporation, with failing to treat and deal with customers' 

funds as belonging to such customers, preparing and maintaining false records 

and failing to prepare and maintain records required by the Commodity Exchange 

Act and regulations. The complaint also charges that Harney, Barns Inc. and A. 

James Comenzo furnished false information in connection with the corporation's 

application for registration as futures commission merchant under the Commodity 

Exchange Act. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, May 27, 1965, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Chris STOVIC, petitioner, v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, et al.

No. 16-371.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
William CONNELLY, petitioner, v. Scott SEMPLE, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction.

No. 16-6105.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-30731

BARBARA BAILEY PICHON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

MURPHY OIL USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

April 15, 2002
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * In its petition for rehearing, petitioner complains that our opinion did not consider its argument that this suit was barred by

an earlier arbitration. The district court thoroughly discussed Murphy’s argument on this point and for reasons stated by the district co urt in its May 30, 2001 order and reasons, we also reject this argument. The petition for panel rehearing is2

therefore DENIED. No member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc, (Fed. R. App. P and 5 th Cir. R. 35) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED.
|   | Name                                   | Jurisdiction of      Organization |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| 1.     | Marvel Characters, Inc.                     | Delaware                          |
| 2.     | Marvel Characters B.V.                      | The Netherlands                   |
| 3.     | MVL International C.V.                      | The Netherlands                   |
| 4.     | Marvel International Character Holdings LLC | Delaware                          |
| 5.     | Marvel Entertainment International Limited  | United Kingdom                    |
| 6.     | Marvel Property, Inc.                       | Delaware                          |
| 7.     | Marvel Publishing, Inc.*                    | Delaware                          |
| 8.     | Marvel Internet Productions LLC             | Delaware                          |
| 9.     | Marvel Toys Limited                         | Hong Kong                         |
| 10.    | Spider-Man Merchandising L.P.               | Delaware                          |
| 11.    | MRV, Inc.                                   | Delaware                          |
| 12.    | Marvel Studios, Inc.                        | Delaware                          |
| 13.    | MVL Film Finance LLC                        | Delaware                          |
| 14.    | MVL Productions LLC                         | Delaware                          |
| 15.    | MVL Rights LLC                              | Delaware                          |
| 16.    | MVL Development LLC                         | Delaware                          |
| 17.    | Marvel Film Productions LLC                 | Delaware                          |
| 18.    | Iron Works Productions LLC                  | Delaware                          |
| 19.    | Incredible Productions LLC                  | Delaware                          |
| 20.    | MVL Iron Works Productions Canada, Inc.     | Province of Ontario               |
| 21.    | MVL Incredible Productions Canada, Inc.     | Province of Ontario               |
| 22.    | Asgard Productions LLC                      | Delaware                          |
| 23.    | Marvel Animation, Inc.                      | Delaware                          |
| 24.    | Green Guy Toons LLC                         | Delaware                          |
| 25.    | Squad Productions LLC                       | Delaware                          |

----
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Arthur O’Toole.

January 18, 1937.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MILROSE BROKERAGE CO., INC., AND MILTON E. ROSENBERG 

DOCKET NUMBER: 145 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 145 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Milrose Brokerage Co., Inc., 

and Milton E. Rosenberg 

(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) 

The complaint charges Milrose Brokerage Co., Inc., and Milton E. Rosenberg 

with failing to treat and deal with customers' funds as belonging to such 

customers, failing to segregate and account separately for such funds, and using 

funds to margin the trades of persons other than those for whom such funds were 

held. The complaint also charges that the respondents failed to send customers 

required statements and failed to prepare and maintain records required under 

the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, February 28, 1967, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
June 2, 1949.

*Miscellaneous Order.*

No. 655, Misc.

#### McGee *v.*Mississippi.

Petition for stay of execution of sentence of death denied.
**EXHIBIT INDEX**

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Registrant certifies that itmeets all of the requirements for the effectiveness of this Registration Statement pursuant to Rule 485(b) under the Securities Act of 1933and has duly caused this Post-Effective Amendment No. 42 to the Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Boston, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the 17th day of May 2013.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this Registration Statement has been signed below by the following personsin the capacities and on the dates indicated.

POWER OF ATTORNEY
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 SiriCOMM, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2003 (the "Report"), I, J Richard
Iler, 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.



/s/ J Richard Iler
--------------------------
J. Richard Iler
Chief Financial Officer
May 19, 2003
* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Office of Proceedings 

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Three Lafayette Centre 


1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 


www.cftc.gov 

Trevor W. Thomson, 

Complainant, 

v. 

Forex Capital Markets LLC 

d/b/aFXCM, 

Respondent. 

CFTC Docket No. 16-R15 

* Served electronically 

* 

* 

* 

* 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The parties have amicably settled their dispute, and have executed and filed a 

joint stipulation of dismissal. Accordingly, pursuant to CFTC rule 12.21, this proceeding 

is dismissed. 

October 26, 2016. 

U#..7/'M 4~· McGuire, Judgment Officer
Exhibit (i)

Dechert LLP

One International Place, 40th Floor
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 ChrisKen  Growth & Income L.P.
II, a Delaware  limited  partnership  (the  "Company"),  on Form  10-QSB for the
period  ending  September 30, 2002,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert Mayer,  Chief Financial
Officer of ChrisKen Income Properties,  Inc. II, the managing general partner 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 and based
on my review of the Report:

     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.





                                        By: /s/Robert Mayer
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Robert Mayer
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc. II
                                            Managing General Partner
                                            ChrisKen Growth & Income L.P. II
                                            November 13, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7566
DONALD L. RICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ZORO J. GUICE, JR., The Honorable, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-90-1-1-MU) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 8, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald L. Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Donald L. Rice appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U .S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Rice v. Guice , No. CA-03-90-1- 1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 17, 2003 & entered Sept. 22, 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.

DISMISSED