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 Annual Report of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth S. Ord, 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 to my knowledge:



|(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/ Kenneth S. Ord                                       
|Kenneth S. Ord Chief Financial Officer September 13, 2005
**EXHIBIT 24**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned officers and/or directors of Valley Financial Corporation, a Virginia corporation (“Valley”), does hereby constitute and appoint Ellis L. Gutshall and Kimberly B. Snyder, and each of them (with full power to each of them to act alone), his true and lawful Attorneys in Fact and Agents for him and on his behalf and in his name, place and stead in any and all capacities and particularly as an officer and/or director of Valley, to sign, execute and affix his seal thereto and file any of the documents referred to below:

 

Annual Report for the calendar year ended December 31, 2008 on Form 10-K, and any amendments thereto, together with all exhibits and any and all documents required to be filed with respect thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and all other appropriate regulatory authorities;

 

granting unto said Attorneys and each of them full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises in order to effectuate the same as fully, to all intents and purposes, as he himself might or could do if personally present, hereby ratifying and affirming all that said Attorneys in Fact and Agents or each of them may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

WITNESS the signatures and seals of the undersigned this 29th day of January, 2009.

 

| /s/ Mason Haynesworth (Seal)         | /s/ George W. Logan (Seal)      |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                 |                            |
| /s/ Samuel L. Lionberger, Jr. (Seal) | /s/ Anna L. Lawson (Seal)       |
|                                 |                            |
| /s/ John W. Starr (Seal)             | /s/ Abney S. Boxley, III (Seal) |
|                                 |                            |
| /s/ James S. Frantz, Jr. (Seal)      | /s/ Edward B. Walker (Seal)     |
|                                 |                            |
| /s/ A. Wayne Lewis (Seal)            | /s/ Michael E. Warner (Seal)    |
|                                 |                            |
| /s/ Eddie F. Hearp (Seal)            | /s/ Ellis L. Gutshall (Seal)    |
|                                 |                            |
| /s/ Barbara B. Lemon (Seal)          | /s/ Geoffrey Ottaway (Seal)     |
|                                 |                            |
| /s/ Ward W. Stevens (Seal)           | /s/ William D. Elliot (Seal)    |
|                                 |                            |

 

 

 

1
#### C.R.U. & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. Travis McLEROY, Clearworks Technologies, Inc. and Centurion Alarm Services, Inc., Appellees.

No. 01-02-00973-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

April 10, 2003.

Evelyn Graham Rodriguez, Houston, for Appellant.

Matthew Brian Probus, Wauson & Associates, Sugar Land, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Justices HEDGES, ALCALA, and HANKS.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 9, 2002. Appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a notice of appeal, but it has not paid the appellate filing fee. On October 15, 2002, this Court ordered that unless, within 15 days of the date of the order, appellant paid the appellate filing fee, his appeal would be dismissed. The 15 days have expired and appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee.

On December 17, 2002, we ordered that unless, within 30 days of the date of the order, appellant filed his brief and a rea*85sonable explanation for failure to timely file his brief, this Court would dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. The 30 days have expired and appellant has not responded.

The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. *See*Tex.R.App. P. 5; Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, Mise. Docket No. 98-9120 (Tex. Jul. 21,1998); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207(a) (Vernon Supp.2003); Tex.R.App. P. 38.8(a)(1).
STATE of North Carolina v. Joseph Edwards TEAGUE, III

No. 211P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Southport, for Teague, Joseph Edwards (III).

Kevin G. Mahoney, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of July 2018 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 24th of October 2018."

Morgan, J. recused
Exhibit 10.5(d)



BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION

383 MADISON AVENUE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10179



As of July 29, 2005



Aames Investment Corporation

350 South Grand Avenue

Suite 4200

Los Angeles, CA 90071



Attention: Mr. Jon D. Van Deuren



|Re: | Master Repurchase Agreement between Bear Stearns
|--- | ------------------------------------------------

Mortgage
Capital Corporation (Buyer) and Aames Capital Corporation, Aames

Investment Corporation and Aames Funding Corporation
(Sellers)

dated as of August 4, 2004, as amended by Amendment No. 1 between Buyer and

Sellers dated as of March 18, 2005 and Amendment No. 2 between Buyer and

Sellers dated as of June 20, 2005 (collectively, the Agreement)



Dear Mr. Van Deuren:



This letter will confirm
the mutual agreement between Buyer and Sellers, to extend the term of the Agreement as described in paragraph 22, Non-assignability; Termination to August 4, 2006. The extension shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set
forth in the Agreement and the receipt by Buyer of the commitment fee agreed to by Buyer and Sellers.



Very Truly Yours,BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE CAPITALCORPORATIONBy:

/s/ David S. MarrenName: David S. MarrenTitle: Senior Vice President




AGREED AND ACCEPTED:



AAMES CAPITAL CORPORATION
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND M. MARKER,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00010-NCT-1; 1:08-cv-647)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond M. Marker, Appellant Pro Se. L. Patrick Auld, Angela 

Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond M. Marker seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Marker has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robertson Bahaw, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 851]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered August 12, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since, by its terms, defendant’s appeal waiver was limited to rulings on motions, we reach the merits of defendant’s excessive sentence claim. We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
#### CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Conocophillips Company, Inc. and the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

No. 2003-CC-2266.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 12, 2003.

In re Citgo Petroleum Corp.; Conoco-phillips Co., Inc.; Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal Dist.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish' of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 468,813; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1685.

Denied.
ACTS RETIREMENT-LIFE COMMUNITIES, INC. v. TOWN OF COLUMBUS

334PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2018

Ryan D. Bolick, Attorney at Law, Virginia M. Wooten, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Town of Columbus, North Carolina.

Benjamin R. Sullivan, Jr., Attorney at Law, for ACTS Retirement-Life Communities, Inc.

Charles C. Meeker, Attorney at Law, Stephen V. Carey, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for ACTS Retirement-Life Communities, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 23rd of February 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of March 2018."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 28th day of March 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
----

(2004/C 84 E/0103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3708/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Livorno

With reference to question E-0964/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Livorno (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

----

(1)OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

----
WORLEY, et al. v. MOORE, et al.

310A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 24, 2017

Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, John M. Moye, Attorney at Law, for Moore, Roy J., et al.

R. Daniel Boyce, Attorney at Law, Thomas J. Ludlam, Attorney at Law, David S. Pokela, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Worley, Dennis, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of August 2017 by Jerrold J. Ganzfried for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of August 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION N o. 04

- 13

- 00146

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.Z. , J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A. From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- PA

- 03206 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 28, 2013 AFFIRMED This is an appeal from the trial court’s termination of Appellant I.A. Sr.’s parental rights to T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A. The trial court terminated A ppellant’s parental rights based on grounds set forth in Texas Family Code section 161.001. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.001(1) (E), (N), (O) , (Q) (West Supp. 201 2 ). T he court also determined that terminating Appellant’s parental rights was in the best interest of each child: T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A. See i d . § 161.001(2) (West 2008)

. Appellant’ s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Therefore, counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. Se e Fletcher v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , 277 S.W. 3d 58 , 64 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (affirming a judgment because the04

- 13

- 00146

- CV judgment could be upheld on an unchallenged ground). The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. Califor nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009 , pet. denied ) (applying Anders procedure in an appeal from termination of parental rights) ; In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004 , no pet. ) ; In re RR , No. 04

– 03

– 0 0096

– CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.

— S an Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; In re K.S.M. , 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2001 , no pet. )

. Counsel provide d A ppellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informe d him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel ’ s motion to withdraw is granted. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85

– 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet .)

.

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

- 2

-
In the Matter of: B.S. Jr. and H.S.

No. COA16-438

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5706-5707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2011]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Conservation Act of 1978; Notice of Permit Modification

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
SUMMARY: The Foundation modified a permit to conduct activities 
regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541; 
Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 670).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly A. Penhale, Environmental 
Officer, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

[[Page 5707]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 21, 1999, the National Science 
Foundation issued a five-year permit (ACA <greek-i>2000-001) to Dr. 
Steven D. Emslie after posting a notice in the August 17, 1999 Federal 
Register. Public comments were not received. A request to modify the 
permit was posted in the Federal Register on December 20, 2004. No 
public comments were received. The modification was issued by the 
Foundation on January 19, 2005.

Polly A. Penhale,
Environmental Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-2011 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
In the MATTER OF: B.A.S.

No. COA17-1367

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Alan L. Hoover, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Kahiki Foods, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.


Date:  March 29, 2006


/s/ Alan L. Hoover
------------------------
Alan L. Hoover, Acting CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)


                                       23
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 28, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 28, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16A1674. RICKEY SMITH v. STATE OF GEORGIA.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On June 01, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than June 13, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MortgageIT Holdings, Inc.(the "Company") for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),Doug W. Naidus, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

(1)    The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)    The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

|  | By: /s/ DOUGW.NAIDUS                                         |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | Doug W. NaidusChairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficerAugust 11, 2005 |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------|

This certification accompanies theReport pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

----