alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 13.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 LDK Solar Co., Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Xiaofeng Peng, Chairman 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 to my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
     as applicable, 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: April 4, 2008                        /s/ Xiaofeng Peng
                                            ----------------------------
                                            Xiaofeng Peng
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
exv10w3





Exhibit 10.3




SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

GLOBAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.

2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




     The Global Industries, Ltd. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as
follows (terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the Plan),
effective as of August 5, 2009:



     1. Subsection (h)(ix)(A) of Section 6 of the Plan shall be amended to read as follows:




     “(A) any Person (which for purposes of this Section 6(h)(ix) shall include any
“group” within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3) under the Exchange Act) except an
underwriter or group of underwriters in connection with a public offering of the
Common Stock, is or becomes the “beneficial owner” (as such term is defined in Rule
13d-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act), directly or indirectly, of securities of
the Company (such Person being referred to as an “Acquiring Person”) representing
50% of the combined voting power of the Company’s outstanding securities other than
beneficial ownership by (i) the Company or any Subsidiary of the Company or (ii) any
employee benefit plan of the Company or any Person organizes, appointed or
established pursuant to the terms of any such employee benefit plan (unless such
plan or Person is a party to or is utilized in connection with a transaction led by
Outside Persons as defined below);”



     2. The second paragraph of subsection (h)(ix) of Section 6 of the Plan shall be amended to
read as follows:



          “For purposes of clause (A) above, the term “Outside Persons” means any Persons other than
Persons described in clauses (A)(i) or members of senior management of the Company in office
immediately prior to the time the Acquiring Person acquires the beneficial ownership described in
clause (A).”




     3. The parenthetical in subpart (2)(A) of the third paragraph of subsection (h)(ix) that reads
as follows is hereby deleted:



          “(unless such other part or such Person is William J. Dore, if William J. Dore has not ceased
to be an Excluded Person)”




     4. The Plan as amended and modified by this Second Amendment shall remain in full force and
effect and this Second Amendment shall not change or modify the terms of any outstanding Awards
under the Plan.



     Adopted by the Board of Directors of Global Industries, Ltd. on August 5, 2009.
EXHIBIT
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Summit Environmental
      Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,
      2005 (the “Report”), I, B. Keith Parker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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





Dated: November 22,
  2005


*/s/
      B. Keith Parker*


B.
      Keith
      Parker


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer








The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.
#### SID P. CHILDRESS v. MURRAY J. ABELES and CLARENCE A. TROUTMAN, t/a UNIVERSAL COMPANY.

(Filed 13 April, 1955.)

PetitioN by defendants to rehear the above entitled case, which is reported in 240 N.C. 667, 84 S.E. 2d 176.

*Thomas Turner, Jordan & Wright, and Perry C. Henson for Plaintiff, Respondent.*

*Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice and Arthur A. Beaudry for Defendants, Appellants.*

PeR Curiam.

The petition to rehear was ordered docketed by the two Justices to whom it was referred, and the Court directed an oral argument. After the rehearing it is ordered that the petition be

Dismissed.

BaRNHIll, C. J., and DeviN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this rehearing.
EX-34.5
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

* Ernst & Young LLP
  Suite 1000
  55 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard
  Atlanta, Georgia 30308

* Phone: (404) 874-8300
  www.ey.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report
on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that ZC Real Estate Tax Solutions Limited
('the Company' or 'ZCRETS') complied with certain servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for
the ZC Tax Source (ZCTS) Real Estate Tax Outsourcing Platform (the Platform) as
of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. The Company has determined that
only certain servicing criteria Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), Item 1122(d)(4)(xi), Item
1122(d)(4)(xii) and Item 1122(d)(4)(xiii) are applicable to the activities
performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The
Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB are not
applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform
covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's assertion for the
Platform and Servicer covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation 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 and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the
Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the servicing activities performed by the Company
during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our
tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by
the Company during the period covered by this report for the Platform. 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 servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


February 14, 2007



A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 6D2023-2336 

Lower Tribunal No. CF19-010668-XX 

_____________________________ 

KYLE REESE, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. 

Wm. Bruce Smith, Judge. 

July 9, 2024 

PER CURIAM. 

 AFFIRMED. 

NARDELLA and SMITH, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur. 

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Frederick W. Vollrath, Special 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William C. Shelhart, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. JEFFREY GRANT PRYSOCK , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 7:11

- cr - 00171

- HMH

- 1; 7:16

- cv - 02251

- HMH )

Submitted : March 24, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Benjamin T

. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender , Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Grant Prysock seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealabl e unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). 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 , 5 29 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 state s 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 Prysock 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 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

The Boeing Company ) ASBCA No. 63360

- ADR

)

Under Contract No. FA8634

- 12

- C

- 2651 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Scott M. McCaleb, Esq.

Jon W. Burd, Esq.

Gary S. Ward, Esq.

Lisa M. Rechden, Esq.

Wiley Rein LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter, III, Esq.

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Josephine R. Farinelli, Esq.

M aj Ashley Ruhe, USAF

M aj Candice D. Schubbe, USAF

Trial Attorneys

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HARTMAN

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter

judgment in favor of appellant. I t is the Board ’ s decision, pursuant to

41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b) , and the parties ’ settlement agreement and joint motion

for entry of consent judgment, that th is appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent

judgment, the Board makes a monetary award that it has reviewed and determined to

be fair and reasonable to the appellant in the amount of $6 2 ,000,000. This amount is

inclusive of interest. No further interest shall be paid.

Dated: April 6 , 2 023

(Signatures continued) TERRENCE S. HARTMAN

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I concur

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63360

- ADR

, Appeal of

The Boeing Company , rendered in conformance with the Board ’ s Charter.

Dated: April 6, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         327,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (30,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    669,616
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,101,013
<PP&E>                                          22,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,914)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,004,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          580,656
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,439
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,416,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,004,215
<SALES>                                         18,548
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,751
<CGS>                                            4,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               234,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    46
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (215,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (215,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (215,254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Orrin C. Hinman, Respondent, v. Charles A. Stillwell, Appellant.

Order reversed, with costs and judgment ordered in the County Court of Onondaga county for the defendant on the verdict.

Opinion by

Follett, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 MASCOTECH, INC. 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          29,020
<SECURITIES>                                     2,540
<RECEIVABLES>                                  224,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    187,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,360
<PP&E>                                         976,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                 304,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,051,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          275,610
<BONDS>                                      1,325,150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,460
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,051,880
<SALES>                                      1,233,740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,233,740
<CGS>                                          912,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  912,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                113,920
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,350
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.47
        

</TABLE>
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D22-1833

LT Case No. 2019-DR-002036

_____________________________

SHERRICE BRYSON DOUGLAS,

Appellant,

v.

TONEY DOUGLAS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County.

Susan Stacy, Judge.

Rev. James T. Golden, Bradenton, for Appellant.

Mark A. Skipper, of Law Office of Mark A. Skipper, P.A., 

Orlando, for Appellee.

October 31, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

JAY, SOUD, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAYMUNA AKTHER

,

Plaintiff

,

v.

RENA BITTER

,

Defendant s

. Civil Action No. 23

- 2431 ( LLA )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Maymuna Akther , proceeding pro se, 1 brings this action against Defendants Rena

Bitter, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Consular Affairs; Helen LaFave, Deputy Chief of

Mission, U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh; and Antony Blinken, Secretary of the U.S. Department of

State. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 12

- 14. She asks the court “to compel the Defendants to take action on and

adjudicate her properly

- filed I

- 130 visa application.” Id. ¶ 1. On June 10, 2024, Defendants filed

a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the case is

moot because Ms. Akther’s visa has been issued and she has entered the United States. ECF

No. 11, at 1. On June 14, 2024, the court issued a Fox / Neal order directing Ms. Akther to respond

to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before July 5, 2024. ECF No. 12. The court advised

Ms. Akther that, if she failed to respond to Defendants’ motion in the time provided, the court

could treat the motion as conceded, rule on Defendants’ motion based on Defendants’ arguments

alone, or dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 12, at 1. When Ms. Akther failed to

respond by July 5, the court extended the deadline to respond to Augu st 5, 2024. See July 15, 2024

1 Ms. Akther was initially represented by counsel, but counsel withdrew on June 6, 2024.

ECF No. 10.2

Minute Order. Because Ms. Akther has again failed to respond, and in light of Defendants’

representation that her visa has been issued and she has entered the United States, the court grants

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the matter a s moot. See Sayad v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.

,

No. 20

- CV

- 2333, 2022 WL 4130840, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2022) (dismissing visa mandamus

case as moot when a consular officer issued a final decision on the relevant visa application);

Aboutalebi v. Dep’t of State , 19

- CV

- 2605, 2019 WL 6894046, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2019)

(same). A separate order will issue.

SO ORDERED

.

/s/ Loren L. AliKhan

LOREN L. ALIKHAN

United States District Judge

Date: August 12 , 2024
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5357 Filed: 12/23/19 Entered: 01/13/20 13:48:19 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5357 Filed: 12/23/19 Entered: 01/13/20 13:48:19 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5357 Filed: 12/23/19 Entered: 01/13/20 13:48:19 Page 3 of

3
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., et al.

 Debtors.

Chapter 11

Case No. 19-30088 Chapter 11

(Jointly Administered)

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 

1111(a). Transferee hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in 

this evidence and notice.

TRC Environmental Corporation

Name of Transferor

Phone: (860) 298-9692

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Name and Address where notices and 

payments to transferee should be sent:

Whitebox Relative Value Partners, LP

c/o Whitebox Advisors

3033 Excelsior Blvd, Suite 300

Minneapolis, MN 55416-4675

Attn: Scott Specken

Whitebox Relative Value Partners, LP

Name of Transferee

Phone: (612) 253-6061

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Claim No: 79593

Debtor: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(19-30089)

Date Filed: October 21, 2019

Total Amount of Claim: $459,967.06

Transferred Amount of Claim: 

$459,967.06

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge and belief.

By:______________________________ Date:____________

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, 

or both. 18 U.S.C. 152 & 3571.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 211F48CB-C65B-4737-B784-44C85E9567FB

Mark Strefling

Partner & CEO

12/5/2019 | 16:18 PST

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5016 Filed: 12/06/19 Entered: 12/06/19 15:34:22 Page 1 of

2
By: Whitebox Advisors LLC its investment manager

Luke Harris

General Counsel - Corporate, Transactions & 

Litigation

DocuSign Envelope ID: FDA9E986-F4E0-4236-A1F6-30FEA62F2B3A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5016 Filed: 12/06/19 Entered: 12/06/19 15:34:22 Page 2 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5200 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 07:34:12 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5200 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 07:34:12 Page 2 of

2