alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jim R. Porter, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Randall J. Frapart, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of 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; 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:  November 13, 2003 |                                                              |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                              |
|                               | /s/ Jim R. Porter                                                 |   |
|                               | Jim R. Porter                                                     |
|                               | Chairman of the Board of  Directors,  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                               |                                                              |
| Date:  November 13, 2003 |                                                              |
|                               |                                                              |
|                               | /s/ Randall J. Frapart                                            |   |
|                               | Randall J. Frapart                                                |
|                               | Chief Financial Officer                                           |
|                                    |                                                                   |  |  |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has beenprovided to HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by HyperFeedTechnologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

1

----
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

December 7, 2004 Session

ROBERT STEVEN JOHNSON v. TENNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County

No. 1-106-98 Hon. Dale C. Workman, Judge

No. E2004-00250-COA-R3-CV - FILED MARCH 9, 2005

OPINION

CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART

I agree with both Judge Inman’s and Judge Lee’s Opinions that Tennessee Farmers

Mutual Insurance Company was not entitled to a directed verdict in this case.

The Trial Court’s instructions to the jury on the issue of bad faith is not a model of

clarity and some of the supplemental special charges were appropriate.

The relationship between the insurer and the insured is purely a contractual

relationship, and the contract gives rise to a duty of acting in perfect good faith on the part of each

party to the contract. The equitable doctrine of good faith and fair dealing applies in full force to

insurance contracts. Clearly, fraudulent conduct on the part of either party is a breach of the contract,

and acting in bad faith is likewise a breach. I agree with Judge Inman’s Opinion that the requested

charges A, C and D as described in his Opinion should have been charged, but I disagree with his

holding that special request B should have been charged. This request places too much emphasis

on fraud and tends to obliterate the distinction between fraud and bad faith.

Finally, I agree with Judge Inman’s Opinion that it was error for the Trial Court to

comment on the evidence, which was in violation of the constitutional mandate to all trial courts

when trying a case before a jury.

I concur in remanding this case for a new trial on the issues.

______________________________

HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4336    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 12:06:38    Page 1 of5

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4336    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 12:06:38    Page 2 of5

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4336    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 12:06:38    Page 3 of5

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4336    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 12:06:38    Page 4 of5

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4336    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 12:06:38    Page 5 of5
#### STATE v. CHARLIE HOPKINS.

(Filed 20 March, 1940.)

1. Criminal Law § 80 — Appeal dismissed for failure of defendant to file brief and required copies of record and case on appeal.

Where defendant files in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court a certified copy of the record proper and defendant’s case on appeal, which had been served on the solicitor, but fails to file nine typewritten copies of the record and case on appeal and fails to file a brief, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, Nos. 22 and 28, but when defendant has been convicted of a capital felony the motion to docket and dismiss will be allowed only after an inspection of the record proper and defendant’s case on appeal shows no apparent error.

2. Criminal Law § 71—

The affidavit and order for appeal *in forma pauperis held*not in strict accord with the statute. *S. v. Smith,*152 N. C., 842.

MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

Per Curiam.

At the November Term, 1939, Rutherford Superior Court, it being the term for the trial of criminal causes, the defendant was tried upon an indictment charging him with the capital felony of murder of one Roy Watkins. There was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. Judgment was thereupon duly entered that the defendant suffer the penalty of death by asphyxiation, as provided by law. *S. v. Morris,*215 N. C., 552, 2 S. E. (2d), 554; *S. v. Young,*216 N. C., 626. From the judgment thus entered the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed forty-five days to make up and serve his statement of case on appeal. The solicitor was given thirty days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or counter-case.

On 12 February, 1940, the defendant filed in the office of the clerk of this Court a certified copy of the record proper and of the defendant’s case on appeal, which case or appeal was served on the solicitor 4 Janu*325ary, 1940. Tbe defendant bas failed, however, to file nine typewritten copies of the record and case on appeal as required by Rule 22, and has likewise failed to file a brief as required by Rule 28.

The Attorney-General, for the State, in due time, filed a written motion to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rules 22 and 28.

We have carefully examined the record proper and the defendant’s case on appeal attached thereto. There is no apparent error on the face of the record and the assignments of error in the case on appeal are without substantial merit. Therefore, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rules 22 and 28 must be allowed. *S. v. Taylor,*194 N. C., 138, 140 S. E., 728; *S. v. Massey,*199 N. C., 601, 155 S. E., 255; *S. v. Goldston,*201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926.

The affidavit and order for appeal *in forma pauperis*is not in strict accord with the statute. *S. v. Smith,*152 N. C., 842, 67 S. E., 965.

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 31


        Re:  Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2006-WM4 (the
             "Trust"), Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-WM4,
             issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as
             of December 1, 2006 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by
             and among Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC, as depositor,
             Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"),
             Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as custodian ( the
             "Custodian"), HomEq Servicing, as servicer (the "Servicer") and
             WMC Mortgage Corp., as responsible party

            I, Paul Menefee, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer,
            certify that:

            1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ("Annual
Report"), and all reports on Form 10-D (collectively with this Annual Report,
the "Reports") required to be filed in respect of period covered by this Annual
Report, of the Trust;

            2.  Based on my knowledge, the Reports, taken as a whole, do 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 Annual Report;

            3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this Annual Report is included in the Reports;

            4.  Based on my knowledge and the compliance statements required in
this Annual Report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
the Reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement in all material respects; and

            5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria required to be included in this
Annual Report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this Annual Report,
except as otherwise disclosed in this Annual Report.  Any material instances of
non-compliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this Annual
Report.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  the Trustee and the
Servicer.

         Date: March 30, 2007
By: /s/ Paul Menefee
Name: Paul Menefee
Title: Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
#### James B. Wise and Frederick Gayer, Appellants, v. Clinton W. Rider, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.—

Martin, J.:

A through examination of the evidence contained in the appeal book has led us to the conclusion that the findings of the trial judge were fully sustained, and that the court properly directed a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint, with costs. The opinion of the learned trial judge so clearly presents the questions involved and the principles of law which govern them, as to render any further discussion unnecessary. We have also examined all the rulings of the trial court to which our attention has been called by the appellants, but have found none that would justify a reversal of the judgment, or that require special discussion. It follows that the judgment should be affirmed.

Hardin, P. J., and Merwin, J., concurred.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 I, Daniel L. Westrope, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of State Financial Services Corporation;
 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 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 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: May 10, 2004
 
 /s/ Daniel L. Westrope
 Daniel L. Westrope
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennantPark Investment Corporation (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arthur H. Penn, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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 Registrant.





/S/    ARTHUR H. PENNName:Arthur H. PennTitle:Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate:November 16, 2011
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Exhibit C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4047-3 Filed: 10/01/19 Entered: 10/01/19 15:09:39 Page 1

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4047-3 Filed: 10/01/19 Entered: 10/01/19 15:09:39 Page 2

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4047-3 Filed: 10/01/19 Entered: 10/01/19 15:09:39 Page 3

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4047-3 Filed: 10/01/19 Entered: 10/01/19 15:09:39 Page 4

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4047-3 Filed: 10/01/19 Entered: 10/01/19 15:09:39 Page 5

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4047-3 Filed: 10/01/19 Entered: 10/01/19 15:09:39 Page 6

of 6
#### Denia M. FAWCETT, Administratrix of the Estate of Floyd S. Fawcett, Appellant, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 21338.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 22, 1965.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1965.

Joseph E. Bass, Jr., and Bass & Lawes, Lake Charles, La., for appellant.

John R. Stewart and Stewart & Bond, Lake Charles, La., for appellee.

Before WHITAKER,* Senior Judge, and RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges.

*

 Of the Court of Claims, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Railroad Company in an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. §§ 51-60. The sole issue was whether the deceased, Fawcett, was an employee of the defendant within the meaning and purpose of the Act at the time of his death. That issue was fully explored by affidavits, oral testimony and exhibits. The district court held that there was no genuine issue of fact. Thinking that no reasonable man could differ with the conclusion that the deceased was not an employee of the defendant at the time he met his death, the district court entered a full opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law,1 and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The various relevant factors under law in determining whether the injured or killed person was an employee of the railroad carrier with respect to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act have been ruled several times by the Supreme Court.2 After careful consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with the opinion, findings, and conclusions of the district court. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. Reported in 242 F.Supp. 675.

2

. Baker v. Texas & P. R. Co., 1959, 359 U.S. 227, 228, 79 S.Ct. 664, 3 L.Ed.2d 756; Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1960, 362 U.S. 396, 400, 80 S.Ct. 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 820, reversing Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 75; see also Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 1958, 356 U.S. 326, 78 S.Ct. 758, 2 L.Ed.2d 799. In each of the two cases first cited in this footnote, the Supreme Court referred to the Restatement of Agency 2nd. § 220 for the factors to be considered in each particular case in determining whether a person is an “employee.” (See 359 U.S. 228, 79 S.Ct. 664; 362 U.S. 400, 80 S.Ct. 789.) All of the pertinent cases are collected in an extensive annotation in 30 A.L.R.2d 517-529, and the Supplement Service.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>   US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       8,116,000
<SECURITIES>                                   975,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,062,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   252,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,156,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,622,000
<PP&E>                                       1,850,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 212,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,983,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          873,000
<BONDS>                                         29,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,095,000
<COMMON>                                    16,160,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,174,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,983,000
<SALES>                                      1,599,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,697,000
<CGS>                                        1,143,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,051,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,392,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,392,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,392,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
SCHEDULE 1

1

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Potential Parties in Interest

Debtors 

Debtors’ Trade Names and Aliases (up to 8 years) (a/k/a, f/k/a, d/b/a)

Affiliates and Subsidiaries

Bank Accounts 

Bankruptcy Judges & Staff Northern District of California

Current Officers and Directors

Term and Revolving Loan Lenders and Administrative Agents

Contract Counterparties (includes, PPAs, patents and IP)

Debtors Professionals (law firms, accountants and other professionals)

Former Officers and Directors (since 2008)

Affiliations of Former Officers

Affiliations of Former Directors

Insurance/Insurance Provider/Surety Bonds

Surety Bonds

Landlords and parties to leases

Lenders (Prepetition and Proposed Postpetition to the extent not already listed)

Litigation Counterparties/Litigation Pending Lawsuits – including threatened litigation

Litigation Parties (in adversary 19-03003)

Ad Hoc Committee of Unsecured Tort Claimant Creditors

Non-Debtors Professionals

Ordinary Course Professionals

Letters of Credit

Regulatory and Government (Federal, State and Local)

DIP Lenders

Significant Competitors

Significant Shareholders (more than 5% of equity)

Significant holder of voting securities

Taxing Authorities (Federal, State, and Local; trust fund, use property, franchise, sales)

Top Unsecured Creditors 

Unsecured Notes

UCC Lien Holders

Unions 

Office of the United States Trustee for Region 17

Utility Providers

Vendors/Suppliers (critical, foreign, common carrier, shippers, warehousemen, customs duties, 

brokers charges, facilities provider and third party)

Interested Parties / Notice of Appearance Parties

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2172-1 Filed: 05/21/19 Entered: 05/21/19 17:15:01 Page 1

of 1