alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 filing of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 9, 2003 (the Report) by ClubCorp, Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/     Jeffrey P. MayerJeffrey P. Mayer Chief Financial Officer






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Patrick Quinn, Plaintiff, v Hillside Development Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. County Center Roofing Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 206]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff, Hillside Development Corp., appeals, as limited by its letter dated December 10, 2004, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered May 25, 2004, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the third-party defendant County Center Roofing Co., Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*407The plaintiff allegedly was injured when a ladder slipped out from under him while he was descending from the roof of a building owned by the defendant and third-party plaintiff, Hillside Development Corp. (hereinafter Hillside). He commenced this action against Hillside to recover damages for personal injuries. Hillside commenced a third-party action against County Center Roofing Co., Inc. (hereinafter CC Roofing). Hillside alleged that it was being held vicariously liable for the negligence of CC Roofing, which provided the ladder, and sought indemnity.

The Supreme Court properly denied Hillside’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against CC Roofing. On a prior appeal, upon reviewing the denial of CC Roofing’s motion for summary judgment, this Court found that there was a-triable issue of fact on whether the plaintiff was an employee of CC Roofing on the date of the accident *(see Quinn v Hillside Dev. Corp.,*309 AD2d 794, 795 [2003]). Since Hillside’s cross motion, which is the subject of this appeal, was based on the same arguments and facts Hillside raised in opposition to CC Roofing’s prior motion, this Court’s prior determination constitutes the law of the case on this issue *(see Johnson v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport,*288 AD2d 269 [2001]; *Matter of Parsons,*78 AD2d 876 [1980]). Moreover, Hillside did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting a departure from the earlier determination on this issue *(see Carole A. v City of New York,*169 AD2d 800, 801 [1991]; *Vanguard Tours v Town of Yorktown,*102 AD2d 868 [1984]; *cf. Persaud v City of New York,*307 AD2d 346, 347 [2003]).

Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary for us to revisit the substantive arguments of the parties concerning the employment status issue *(see Matter of Parsons, supra).*S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.14      CONSENT OF ROBERT OSWALD   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2011 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101  Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, Technical Report on 2010 Drilling Program and Geochemical Soil Testing, Corvet Est Project, Quebec, Virginia Mines, Inc. February 2011 (the Technical Study) concerning mineralized material in the Corvet Est property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading Item III Description of the Business  3.6.4 Geological Setting, 3.6.5 Exploration and Drilling, and 3.6.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2011 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference therein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.    Very truly yours,   /s/ Robert Oswald Name:  Robert Oswald, P.Geo.     May 12, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                            EXHIBIT 14(a)(1)(iv)

                                                                  ARTHURANDERSEN



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To ORIX Real Estate Capital Markets, LLC:

We have examined management's assertion about ORIX Real Estate Capital Markets,
LLC's ("ORECM") compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in
the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's (MBA) UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION
PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS (USAP) (except for minimum servicing standards V.4.
and VI.1., which the MBA has interpreted as inapplicable in commercial and
multi-family servicing contracts) as of and for the year ended December 31,
2000, included in the accompanying  management assertion.  Management is
responsible for ORECM's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about ORECM's
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about ORECM's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on ORECM's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion  that ORECM  complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2000, is fairly stated, in all material respects.


                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Dallas, Texas,
 February 22, 2001

                                     -14-

<PAGE>

                                                                   PAGE 2 OF 2


REPORT OF MANAGEMENT


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2000, ORIX Real Estate Capital
Markets, LLC has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM
SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS (except for commercial loan and
multifamily loan servicing, minimum servicing standards V.4. and VI.1., which
the MBA has interpreted as inapplicable to such servicing). For the period of
January 1, 2000, through July 11, 2000, ORIX Real Estate Capital Markets, LLC
had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the amount of
$25,000,000. For the period of July 12, 2000, through December 31, 2000, ORIX
Real Estate Capital Markets, LLC had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions policy in the amount of $35,000,000.




/s/ Michael E. Cousins
----------------------------------         -----------------------------------
Michael E. Cousins
Chief Financial Officer



/s/ Paul Smyth
----------------------------------         -----------------------------------
Paul Smyth
Managing Director of Servicing

                                     -15-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Briggs, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 664]

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of *653Schenectady County (Hoye, J.), rendered January 21, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, both class B felonies. Defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class C felony *(see*Penal Law § 110.05 [4]), in full satisfaction of the indictment. As part of the plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal and executed a written waiver to that effect. In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of incarceration of 3 to 6 years. He now appeals.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal, as well as by his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Kelly,*3 AD3d 789, 789 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 801 [2004]; *People v Kalenak,*2 AD3d 902, 902 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 629 [2004]). The exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable because defendant made no statements during the plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666-667 [1988]; *People v Kelly, supra*at 789; *People v Kalenak, supra*at 902; *People v Kemp,*288 AD2d 635, 636 [2001]). Defendant’s claim that County Court’s allocution was inadequate because defendant provided little more than “yes” or “no” responses is without merit. The record shows that defendant’s affirmative responses to County Court’s questions established the elements of the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty *(see People v Goodell,*13 AD3d 816, 817 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 831 [2005]; *People v Kemp, supra*at 636).

Defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s overall poof performance is foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal inasmuch as the ineffectiveness alleged does not bear upon the voluntariness of his plea *(see People v Lane,*1 AD3d 801, 803 [2003], *lv denied 2*NY3d 742 [2004]; *People v Watkins,*304 AD2d 987, 987-988 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 588 [2003]). In any event, defendant “receive [d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” *(People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; *see People v Wright,*295 AD2d 806, 807 [2002]). Defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence is likewise barred by his voluntary waiver of appeal, *654and we find no basis on this record to conclude that said waiver should not be honored *(see People v Clow,*10 AD3d 803 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dena Inez MINTON.

No. 540P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Dena Inez Minton.

W. Dale Talbert, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of November 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1300901                 1300901
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 20447388                20447388
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              30975036                30975036
<PP&E>                                         3240114                 3240114
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                36963486                36963486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         27212771                27212771
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         90000                   90000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  36963486                36963486
<SALES>                                       20343044                61432525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              20343044                61432525
<CGS>                                         17072331                54139026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 17072331                54139026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1079961                  848133
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1079961                  848133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1079961                  848133
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12                    0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09                    0.07
        

</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 1062 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3309 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the Mayor 

William ‘‘Bill’’ Sandberg Post Office Building. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2008 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, 

Minnesota, as the Mayor William ‘‘Bill’’ Sandberg Post 

Office Building. 

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


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3309 RS

1 SECTION 1. MAYOR WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ SANDBERG POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North 

5 Saint Paul, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Mayor William ‘Bill’ Sandberg Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mayor William ‘Bill’ 

11 Sandberg Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 1062 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3309 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postliam ‘‘Bill’’ Sandberg Post Office Building. North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the Mayor Wil- al Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in 

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Reported without amendment 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3082 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3082

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 1700 Cleveland Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``Reverend Earl 
                      Abel Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REVEREND EARL ABEL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1700 Cleveland Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Reverend Earl Abel Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Reverend 
Earl Abel Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund IX, L.P. (the Registrant) for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General
Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our 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.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | August 12, 2010        



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | August 12, 2010
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

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

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A1 61 4 . KATRI NA BROW N v . GREENSCAPES DESI GN, LLC.

Th i s cas e b e g a n as a d i s po s ses s o ry pro ceed i n g i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Aft er t h e

m ag i s t rat e c o u r t i s s u ed a ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f t he p l ai nt i ff, t he d efen d an t Kat ri n a
Bro w n ap p eal ed t o s u p eri o r co urt

. Th e s u peri o r co u rt al so i ss u ed a ju d g m en t i n fav o r

o f t h e p l ai n t i ff, an d Bro wn fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal . W e l ack ju ri s di ct io n

.

“ [A] p p eal s fro m d eci s i o n s o f t h e s u peri o r co u rt s rev i ewi n g d eci s io n s o f l o wer

co u rt s b y cert i orari o r de no v o p ro ceed i n g s sh al l b e by ap p l i cat i on fo r d i s cret i o n ary

ap p eal .” Bu l l o ck v. S

a n d

, 2 60 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 4
, 8 75 (5 8 1 SE2 d 3 33 ) (2 0 03 ); s ee al s o OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 ). Becau s e Bro w n di d n o t fo l l o w t h e p ro per p ro ced u re fo r

req u es t i ng ap p el l at e rev i ew i n t h i s cas e, we lack ju ri s di ct i o n , a n d t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

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

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

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

f t h e C o u r t o

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

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

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

.

, C l e r k

. July 21, 2021

07/21/2021
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 21.1
                                 SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

 NAME OF                                              JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARY                                             INCORPORATION
----------                                            ---------------
<S>                                                   <C>
DNA Plant Technology Corporation (1)                       Delaware

DNAP Technologies, Inc. (2)                                Delaware

FreshWorld Farms, Inc. (2)                                 Delaware

DNAP Diagnostics, Inc. (2)                                 Delaware

VPP Corporation (1)                                        Delaware

International Produce Holding Company (1)                  Delaware

Bionova Produce, Inc. (3)                                  Arizona

R.B. Packing of California, Inc. (3)                       California

Bionova Produce of Texas, Inc. (3)                         Texas

Bionova Properties, Inc. (3)                               Arizona

Tanimura Distributing, Inc. (4)                            California

Premier Fruits & Vegetables BBL, Inc. (5)                  Quebec, Canada

Premier Fruits & Vegetables (USA), Inc. (5)                Delaware

Agrobionova, S.A. de C.V. (6)                              United Mexican States

Comercializadora Premier, S.A. de C.V. (7)                 United Mexican States

Interfruver de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (8)                    United Mexican States

Premier del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V. (9)                     United Mexican States

Asesoria y Servicios del Noreste, S.A. de C.V. (9)         United Mexican States

Siembra Cultivo y Cosecha del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V. (10)  United Mexican States
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

(1)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Bionova Holding Corporation

(2)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of DNA Plant Technology Corporation

(3)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of International Produce Holding Company

(4)  75% owned by International Produce Holding Company

(5)  80% owned by International Produce Holding Company

(6)  80% owned by Bionova Holding Corporation

(7)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Agrobionova, S.A. de C.V.

(8)  50.01% owned by Agrobionova, S.A. de C.V.

(9)  Wholly-owned by Interfruver de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

(10) 98% owned by Agrobionova, S.A. de C.V.