alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Crowe
Crowe Chizek and company LLC
Member Horwath International




             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Audit Committee
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
West Palm Beach, Florida



We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report,
that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the Residential Mortgage Loans Platform (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, excluding
criteria 1122(1)(iii) and 1122(4)(xv), which management has determined are
not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the
Platform. The Platform consists of the asset-backed transactions and
securities defined by management in Appendix B of Management's Report.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),
and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the
Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed
transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether
the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and
securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included
servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security
constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to
detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period
covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's servicing
activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated,
in all material respects, based on the aforementioned applicable servicing
criteria.

                             /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
                                 Crowe Chizek and Company LLC


Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 8, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of CombiMatrix Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period
ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Amit Kumar, Ph.D., President and Chief 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, 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.

By:

/s/ AMIT KUMAR, PH.D. Amit Kumar, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 18, 2010


---



QuickLinks
* 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 Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41559 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE M. RODRIGUEZ-PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-03-CR-598-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose M. Rodriguez-Pena appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rodriguez-Pena contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a conviction only underNo. 03-41559 -2- that provision, and his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Rodriguez-Pena acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2128 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:32:47 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2128 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:32:47 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2128 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:32:47 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2128 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:32:47 Page 4 of

4
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2380    Filed: 06/04/19    Entered: 06/04/19 13:58:31    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2380    Filed: 06/04/19    Entered: 06/04/19 13:58:31    Page 2 of2
T h e re sp o n d e n t i s the H o n o ra b le K e rr y S . R u sse ll, J u d g e o f t h e 7 th J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, S m ith C o u n ty, 1 T ex as.
R e la to r d o e s n o t ha v e a n a p p e a l p e n d ing in this c o u rt.

2 

## NO. 12-09-00011-CR

IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

§ IN RE: LEO

NA RD RO

SS, RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING § MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION I n this original manda

mus procee ding, Re lator L eonar d Ross seeks an order compelling the tr ia l c ourt

to v a c a te its or de r d e nying Re lat or’ s mo tion t o ta ke jud ic ia l no tic e of

c e rt a in f a c ts
conce rning an alleg ed plea ag ree ment betwee n Relator and the State. Alternatively , Relator asks 1 that we a bate his “a

ppeal” and “g rant a (spee dy ) hear ing for to fully

develop the issues he rein a nd here with.” 2 Relator alleg es in his mandamus petition that, in 1996, he ag ree d to te stify befor e the g rand jury and, in re turn, the State ag ree d Relator would b e i n d i ct ed for a g g ravated robbe ry instead of
c a p i t a l m u r d e r . A f

t e r R e l a t o r ’ s g r an d j u r

y t e s t i m o n y , h e w a s i n d i c t e d f o r c a p i t a l m ur de r andis prese ntly servinga life se ntence for murde r, a le sser include d offe ns e. On S ep t ember 11, 2008, Re lator fi le d a n a pp lic a tio n for po stc on vic tio n wr it of ha be a s cor pu s on the g ro un ds that th e State brea ched its plea

ag ree ment with him and that his trial counsel was ine ff ec t i v e for f

ailing to se ek specific perf

ormanc e of the ag ree ment. Relator s u b s eq u en t ly filed a “ Pro Se Motion R equesting J udicial Notice A s Per Rule 201” in w hich he r equeste d that Respondent take judicia l notice of2

cer tain fac ts relatingto the alleg ed plea a g ree ment, its breac h, and his counsel’ s ineffe ctiveness. He also reque sted a he aringon the motion. Respon d en t d en i ed the motion, and Relator c ontends the denial wa s an abuse of discre tion for which manda mus is available. J urisdiction to issue writs of mandamus in c riminal law matter s pertainingto habea s corpus proce edin g s seekingrelief from fina l felony

judgme nts lies ex clusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In re McAfee , 53 S.W .3d 715, 717-18 (Te x . App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2 001,
or ig . p ro c e e din g ). I nte rm e diat e app ell ate c ourt s h ave no a uth or ity to i ssu e wr its of

mand amus in such matters. See id

. ; se e als o T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC
. ANN . art. 11.07 § 3 (Ve rnon S upp. 2008). Ac c or din g ly , Re lator ’s pe tit ion fo r wri t of

mand amus is dism issed for want of ju risdiction

.

SAMG RI F F ITH J ustice
Opinion delivere d J anuar y 30, 2009. P an elconsi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,947
<INVENTORY>                                    110,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               209,280
<PP&E>                                          89,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,517
<BONDS>                                         91,129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           862
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,604
<SALES>                                        396,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               396,806
<CGS>                                          261,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,549)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,303
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,222
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,212
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,010
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.51


</TABLE>
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 I (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, 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 the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner 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 May 11, 2006



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/S/    DOUGLAS P.
WILLIAMS                              
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer
May 11, 2006
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned, Kurt H. Jensen, Chief Financial Officer of Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”), in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, hereby
certifies pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that




●
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and




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




This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.




By:
/s/KURT H. JENSENKurt H. Jensen
Chief Financial Officer
Applied DNA Sciences, Inc.
February 11, 2010
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Member Conflict Review, Program Announcement (PA) 07-318, Initial Review

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

*Time and Date:*                         1:30 p.m.-3 p.m., July 28, 2010 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, telephone: (304) 285-6143.                              ( print page 30041)    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters to be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of “Member Conflict Review, PA 07-318.”                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         M. Chris Langub, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Programs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E74, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; Telephone: (404)498-2543.                    

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: May 20, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2010-12829 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1657-4    Filed: 04/24/19    Entered: 04/24/19 16:15:44    Page 1of 2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1657-4    Filed: 04/24/19    Entered: 04/24/19 16:15:44    Page 2of 2
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1881    Filed: 05/07/19    Entered: 05/07/19 12:14:06    Page 1 of7

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1881    Filed: 05/07/19    Entered: 05/07/19 12:14:06    Page 2 of7

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1881    Filed: 05/07/19    Entered: 05/07/19 12:14:06    Page 3 of7

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1881    Filed: 05/07/19    Entered: 05/07/19 12:14:06    Page 4 of7

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1881    Filed: 05/07/19    Entered: 05/07/19 12:14:06    Page 5 of7

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1881    Filed: 05/07/19    Entered: 05/07/19 12:14:06    Page 6 of7

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1881    Filed: 05/07/19    Entered: 05/07/19 12:14:06    Page 7 of7
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 1

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 2

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 3

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 4

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 5

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 6

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 7

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 8

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 9

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 10

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 11

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 12

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 13

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 14

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 15

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12949 Filed: 09/12/22 Entered: 09/13/22 07:59:56 Page 16

of 16
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 March 15, 2012 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge * JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge No. 09-3932 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee , v. SERGIO SANDOVAL RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
. No. 10-2190 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee , v. FRANCISCO OCAMPO-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. No. 09 CR 50023-1 Frederick J. Kapala , Judge
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 09 CR 632-1 Virginia M. Kendall , Judge
.

* Circuit Judge Evans died on August 10, 2011, and did not participate in the decision of the Petition for Rehearing, which is being resolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).Appeal nos. 09-3032, et al.,

No. 10-2689 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. LUIS A. MANDUJANO-GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant. Page Two
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 09 CR 586-1 Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.
O R D E R The defendants-appellants filed a petition for rehearing en banc. An answer was requested and filed. No judge in active se rvice has requested a vote on the petition. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED
. However, the amended opinion in this case initially issued in typescript form on December 23, 2011, and published on January 6, 2012, is amended as follows: In the opinion issued in typescript, after the third sentence on page 11, which reads “But Reyes Hernandez also emphasizes . . . Id. at 420.” insert as a footnote: This court does not overlook the fact that district courts retain substantial discretion to consider mitigation arguments at sentencing. As this court made clear in United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2010), district courts mayconsider a fast-track argument, but they are not required to consider one. This opinion addresses a different question—when is a district court obligedto comment on a fa st-track argument. Nothing in this opinion precludes a district court judge from considering a mitigation argument.