alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Moody National REIT I, 10-Q


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




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Moody National REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certifies, to his knowledge, 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 the Company.







Date: May 17, 2010








/s/ Robert W. EngelRobert W. EngelChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2009243EN.01000401.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 October 2009

2009/C 243/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4750 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,12 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4436 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,92285 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2763 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5187 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3025 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,866 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 270,60 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7094 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2560 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2790 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1616 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6288 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5398 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,4314 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0016 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0534 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 717,57 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,9107 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0678 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2518 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 945,55 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0121 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,528 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,6587 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,140 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5708 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,5592 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,4550 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4750

JPY

Japanese yen

131,12

DKK

Danish krone

7,4436

GBP

Pound sterling

0,92285

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2763

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5187

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3025

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,866

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

270,60

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7094

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2560

RON

Romanian leu

4,2790

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1616

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6288

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5398

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,4314

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0016

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0534

KRW

South Korean won

1 717,57

ZAR

South African rand

10,9107

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0678

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2518

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 945,55

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0121

PHP

Philippine peso

68,528

RUB

Russian rouble

43,6587

THB

Thai baht

49,140

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5708

MXN

Mexican peso

19,5592

INR

Indian rupee

68,4550

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 64082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Electronic Health 
Records Workgroup Meeting

ACTION:  Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 20th meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Electronic Health Records Workgroup in accordance 
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., 
App.)

DATES: December 4, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern].

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/healthrecords/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion 
on ways to achieve widespread adoption of certified EHRs, minimizing 
gaps in adoption among providers.
    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional 
information, go to: http://www.hhs.gov.healthit/ahic/healthrecords/ehr_instruct.html.

    Dated: November 2, 2007.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-5642 Filed 11-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
#### STATE v. DAYE

No. 42.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 435.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 7 March 1972.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2 (PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LOGO) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Southwark Towers
32 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9SY
Telephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000
Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7833 4652 The Directors
Barclays Bank PLC
1234 Pavilion Drive
Northampton
NN4 7SG The Directors
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 7) PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Barclaycard Funding PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited
26 New Street
St. Helier
Jersey
JE2 3RA February 28, 2005 Dear Sirs Report of Independent Accountants We have examined managements assertions that Barclays Bank PLC (the Servicer), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Barclays PLC, has complied with its obligations, in its capacity as Servicer, in
respect of the minimum servicing requirements for the credit card receivables arising on designated
accounts as set forth in the clauses 2.1.d, 2.1.e, 2.1.f, 2.1.j, 2.2.a, 2.5.a and 2.5.b, using
definitions set forth in the Master Definitions schedule between Gracechurch Receivables Trustee
Limited, Barclays Bank PLC and Barclaycard Funding PLC dated 24 October 2002 of the Beneficiaries
Servicing Agreement between Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated 23 November 1999
(BSA) during the year ended 31 December 2004 . Management is responsible for the assertion. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting managements assertion about the Servicers compliance with those requirements
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 the Servicers compliance with specified servicing requirements. In our opinion,managements assertion that the Servicer complied with the aforementioned
requirements during the year ended 31 December 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 28 February 2005 Yours faithfully, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP End of Filing
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TERRY M. KNIGHT,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv78/RS/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action was initiated under the Social Security Act to obtain judicial review of

Defendant’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits (Doc. 1). Pending is

Defendant’s Motion to Reverse and Remand pursuant to sentence four of Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

(Doc. 25). Defendant has certified that Plaintiff has no objection to this motion.

Sentence four of section 405(g) states that “[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the

pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision

of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). In the instant case, the Commissioner states that remand is appropriate to enable

the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) “to obtain medical expert testimony from a mental health

expert and consider whether Plaintiff”s valid projected performance and full scale IQs meet or equal

the criteria of listing 12.05C of the Commissioner’s listing of impairments at 20 C.F.R. Part 404,

Subpart P, Appendix 1, when considered in conjunction with Plaintiff’s ‘severe’impairments. If the

sequential evaluation process proceeds beyond step three, the ALJ will be directed to reassess

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity to account for his blindness in his left eye, and to obtain

supplemental vocational expert testimony, if indicated.” (Doc. 25-1 at 1–2). Also, theCommissioner

notes that Plaintiff’s subsequent application for benefits, filed in November 2009, will be
Page 2 of 2

consolidated with this case (id. at 2).

Based on the foregoing, this court concludes that good cause has been shown for remand.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That Defendant’s Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 25) be GRANTED and the

Commissioner’s decision denying benefits be REVERSED.

2. That this case be REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this Report and

Recommendation.

3. That the clerk be directed to enter final judgment in Plaintiff’s favor accordingly.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 30th day of December 2010.

s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy

 ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy of

objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object

may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States

v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No.: 5:10cv78/RS/EMT
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 CDKNet.Com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 17, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Kirk
Warshaw, 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/ Kirk Warshaw
-------------------------
Kirk Warshaw
Chief Financial Officer
September 17, 2004


A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# CA2009313EN.01000201.xml

| 22.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 313/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 313/2

---

ADDENDUM TO THE RESERVE LIST
   (1)

ADDENDUM TO THE RESERVE LIST

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/126/08

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/126/08

Auditors (AD 5)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 239 A — 6 October 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 239 A — 6 October 2008

(2009/C 313 A/02)

Merit group 2

Merit group 2

STEVENIERS Patrick

The addendum to the reserve list will be valid until 31 December 2010 and may be extended.

31 December 2010

---

(1)  At a candidate's request, his/her name will not be published.

1

---
#### Julia E. Cook, Respondent, *v.*The Peoples Milk Company, Appellant.

Reported below, 175 App. Div. 966.

(Submitted November 25, 1918;

decided December 3, 1918.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 14, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.

The motion was made upon the ground that appellant had failed to file and serve briefs as required by rule 7.

*Ralph S. Kent*for motion.

*Walter Jeffreys Carlin*opposed.

Motion denied, without costs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative Studies Scientific Merit Review Board will be held on December 12, 2007, at the Saint Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. and end at 5 p.m.

The Board advises the Chief Research and Development Officer through the Director of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service on the relevance and feasibility of proposed projects and the scientific validity and propriety of technical details, including protection of human subjects.

The session will be open to the public from 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. for the discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the program. The session will be closed from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. for the Board's review of research and development applications.

                    During the closed portion of the meeting, discussions and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and                           ( print page 59335)                        similar documents, and the medical records of patients who are study subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As provided by section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing portions of this meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).                

Those who plan to attend should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Deputy Director, Cooperative Studies Program (125), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 254-0183.

Dated: October 15, 2007.

By Direction of the Secretary.

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-5162  Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Elevate, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 29, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wright Thurston, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








/S/ Wright ThurstonWright ThurstonChief Executive Officer andPrincipal Executive OfficerApril 23, 2012
#### NICKELS v. NICKELS

No. 204 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 690.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 August 1981.
# 02%-iS 

# B ublic



# Tjefender^

Harris County, Texas August 11,2014 Ronnie Anthony Bryant TDCJ # 01310399 Willacy County State Jail 1695 South Buffalo Drive Raymondville, TX 78580 Re: Ronnie Bryant v. State ofTexas, cause number 1338550
Dear Ronnie: 1201 Franklin Street, 13th Floor Houston, Texas 77002
713.368.0016 713.368.9278 eFax



## RECEIVED \H COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS JUN 29 2015 

## AbelAcosta,Clerk

I was surprised when I received your recent letter asking for an update on your appeal. After reviewing the records in your case, I discovered to my surprise that I made the mistake of failing to send you a copy of the opinion in your case which was issued in December of 2013. I have enclosed a copy of the opinion with this letter. Let me first apologize for failing to send you a copyoftheopinion in your case. I have handled a lot 

### of appeals and this is the first time TrTaye made a mistake in this regard, I cahToffer°any explanation as to 

### howthis happened, otherthan to say that itwas an oversight on my partbecause 1 was under tl^irnprretsiorT 

### u^tTnadalready^sent you acopy. However, areview ofrrryTle^6Tr8sTmHcates that you were not sent a^opyT"- After a conviction is affirmed on appeal, as is the situation in your case, there is the option to file something known as a Petition for Discretionary Review, also known as a PDR. A PDR is an instrument where you ask the Court ofCriminal Appeals, the highest criminal court in Texas, to hear your case on appeal 

### and must be filed withiji^O days of t.he_opiniori ofthe Court of Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals doesn't have to hear your case because they get to pick and choose the cases that they hear. A PDR is the instrument you use to ask them to hear your case. If the Court of Criminal Appeals grants your PDR, then you have to try to win your case in the same way as you would before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals only grants about 10% of the PDRs that are submitted to it. Typically, they only grant PDRs on cases that involve complicated legal questions or the interpretations ofnew laws. Here is a more detailed explanation about PDRs that is contained in the intro letter we sent to you when you first indicated you wished to appeal your conviction:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 222 (Monday, November 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65050-65051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Notice of Establishment

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. Appendix 2), the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
announces the establishment of the Emerging Neuroscience and Training 
Integrated Review Group.
    The Emerging Neuroscience and Training Integrated Review Group 
shall

[[Page 65051]]

provide advice and recommendations to the Director, NIH, and the 
Director, Center for Scientific Review (CSR), on the scientific and 
technical merit of applications for grants-in-aid for research, 
research training or research-related grants and cooperative 
agreements, or contact proposals relating to (1) the crosscutting 
technologies that serve all of the neurosciences, including 
neuroinformatics and imaging and molecular neurogenetics; (2) 
crosscutting emerging science in the small business area for all of the 
neurosciences; and (3) the training areas for all of the neurosciences.
    Duration of this committee is continuing unless formally determined 
by the Director, NIH, that termination would be in the best public 
interest.

    Dated: November 1, 2007.
Elias A. Zerhouni,
Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 07-5744 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES LEROY JONES, JR., a/k/a Pooh,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00075-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Leroy Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Kuchta, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Thomas Higgins McQuillan, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Charles Leroy Jones, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order denying his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008)

motion. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Jones , No. 1:96-cr-00075-1

(E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2008). We deny Jones’ motion to compel

production of sentencing transcripts. 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.

AFFIRMED

* The district court informed Jones that he had sixty days in which to appeal. Jones filed his notice of appeal over forty days after entry of judgment. In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies, and collecting cases adopting rule). However, an otherwise untimely notice of appeal may invoke the court’s jurisdiction in “unique

circumstances.” See Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat
Packers, Inc. , 371 U.S. 215, 217 (1962). Application of the doctrine is appropriate where an appellant “relied on the statement of the District Court and filed the appeal within the assumedly new deadline but beyond the old deadline.” Thompson v. INS , 375 U.S. 384, 387 (1964). The doctrine applies in this case, because the district court misled Jones regarding the appropriate time for filing his appeal when the final order mistakenly informed Jones that he had sixty days in which to file. Accordingly, Jones’ notice of appeal is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.