alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Ronald H. Friesen, principal financial officer of Sun Life Assurance Company of
Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Ronald H.
      FriesenRonald
      H. FriesenSenior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer)May
      15, 2008
#### MABEL SMITH v. DICK MASON LUMBER COMPANY, INC. (Original Defendant) and PAUL QUEEN (Additional Defendant.)

(Filed 8 October, 1958.)

Appeal by original defendant from *Sharp, S. J.,*May-June 1958 Civil Term of GastoN.

The complaint alleges plaintiff, a guesit of Paul Queen, was injured in a collision between Queen’s truck and a truck of defendant lumber company, backed without adequate warning from a private entrance into the Gastonia-Dallas highway along which the Queen vehicle was traveling. The collision occurred about 6:30 a.m., 1 February 1957. The paved portion of the highway is 22 feet in width. It is alleged that appellant’s vehicle was without lights. It was rainy, foggy, and dark. Visibility was limited to 50 feet according to plaintiff’s testimony. Defendant’s vehicle had been backed SO' as to occupy the entire width of the highway. Plaintiff seeks damages from the lumber company.

Original defendant denied any negligence on its part causing injury to plaintiff but asserted if in fact it was negligent, Queen was likewise negligent, entitling it to contribution for any damages it was compelled to pay. On its motion Queen was made an additional defendant.

Responding to appropriate issues, the jury found plaintiff was injured by the negligence of defendant lumber company, that Queen did not contribute thereto, and the amount of plaintiff’s damage.

Judgment was entered in conformity with the verdict. Defendant lumber company excepted and appealed.

*0. A. Warren and Whitener & Mitchem for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Garland & Garland for defendant, appellant.*

*L. B. Iiollowell for additional defendant, appellee.*

PeR CuRIam.

The only error asserted is the refusal of appellant’s motion to nonsuit. An examination of the record discloses evidence sufficient to support the verdict. Conflicts in the evidence were solved by the jury. No new legal question is presented.

No Error.
#### KINGSBERRY HOMES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. W. H. COLLINS, Trustee, W. H. Collins, as Trustee for Collins and Company, a partnership composed of W. H. Collins and John Collins, and for W. H. Collins and John Collins, Partners, doing business as Collins and Company, Appellees. W. H. COLLINS, Trustee, W. H. Collins, as Trustee for Collins and Company, a partnership composed of W. H. Collins and John Collins, and for W. H. Collins and John Collins, Partners, doing business as Collins and Company, Appellants, v. KINGSBERRY HOMES CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 21302.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 3, 1965.

*352Drayton T. Scott, George F. Maynard, Frank C. Galloway, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for appellant, Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner & Clark, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel.

R. Clifford Fulford, Birmingham, Ala., for appellees, Levine, Fulford, Gwaltney & Pope, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel.

Before JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and SHEEHY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee brought a diversity action against the appellant seeking recovery upon a guaranty of promissory notes made by an individual who was not a party to the action. The case was tried without a jury. Judgment for the claim of the appellee was entered, except as to attorneys’ fees, which the court denied. The appellant seeks a reversal of the determination of its liability on the guaranty. The appellee, by cross-appeal, seeks to have its attorneys’ fee allowed.

Subsequent to the entry of the judgment from which the appeal and cross-appeal were taken, and after the cause was submitted on appeal, John Collins died, and his death was suggested to the Court. Thereafter, W. H. Collins, individually and as Trustee, together with John Collins Rogers, has represented to the Court that the claim and cause of action and judgment of the appellee are now vested in the said W. H. Collins and John Collins Rogers, as partners doing business as Collins and Company, and they have moved for an order admitting them as parties to this appeal, and have submitted in support of their motion a decree of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Probate Court adjudicating them, as partners, to be the owners of the cause of action and judgment. No opposition to the motion has been made. It is proper, under Rule 19 of this Court, that these parties in interest be joined as parties to this appeal as appellees and cross-appellants. It is so ordered.

 Our review of the evidentiary facts as disclosed by the record and our examination of the applicable principles of law persuade us of the absence of error in the judgment, both in allowing recovery by the appellee on the appellant’s guaranty, and in denying recovery to the appellee for attorneys’ fees. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5343 

To amend section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require that annual State report cards reflect 

the same race groups as the decennial census of population. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. HONDA (for himself, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. SABLAN, Ms. 

MENG, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. 

LEE of California, Ms. BORDALLO, Ms. CHU, Ms. MATSUI, and Mr. 

TAKANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require that annual 

State report cards reflect the same race groups as the 

decennial census of population. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All Students Count 

5 Act of 2014’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5343 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISAGGREGATION OF INFORMATION ON STUDENT 

2 ACHIEVEMENT IN ANNUAL STATE REPORT 

3 CARDS. 

4 Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Elementary and Sec5 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

6 6311(h)(1)(C)(i)) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(i) information, in the aggregate and 

8 disaggregated by the same major race 

9 groups as the decennial census of the pop10 ulation, ethnicity, gender, disability status, 

11 migrant status, English proficiency, and 

12 status as economically disadvantaged, and 

13 cross-tabulated across all of such sub14 groups by gender and by disability, on stu15 dent achievement at each proficiency level 

16 on the State academic assessments de17 scribed in subsection (b)(3), except that 

18 such disaggregation and cross-tabulation 

19 shall not be required in a case in which the 

20 number of students in a subgroup is insuf21 ficient to yield statistically reliable infor22 mation or the results would reveal person23 ally identifiable information about an indi24 vidual student;’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4875 Filed: 11/26/19 Entered: 11/26/19 19:53:16 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4875 Filed: 11/26/19 Entered: 11/26/19 19:53:16 Page 2 of

2
**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 September
      30, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Chris Dellinges, Chief Financial 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/
                Chris
                Dellinges*
              Chris
                Dellinges
              Chief
                Financial 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.





Exhibit
            32.1
**GMAC RFC****SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)****Residential Funding Company, LLC****Lehman XS Trust, Series 2007-2N (the "Issuing Entity")**The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC, as servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that: 1.A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision. 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th day of March 2008. By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi Name: Anthony N. Renzi  Title: Managing Director
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4618 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 11:33:15 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4618 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 11:33:15 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4618 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 11:33:15 Page 3 of

3
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 on Form 10-Q of Commercial Federal
Corporation (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 14, 2002 (the "Report "), I, hereby 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, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                   By:  /s/ William A. Fitzgerald
                                      ---------------------------
                                       William A. Fitzgerald
                                       Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
                                       Officer

Date: November 14, 2002
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 134895 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134895 COA: 276741 Roscommon CC: 05-004915-FC CARLTON CEDRIC PETTIGREW, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e July 26, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00274 - CR

JEROME VIRGIL BURKHA LTER APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Jerome Virgil Burkhalter attempts to appeal from a May 18, 2010 judgment convicting him of misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury. The trial court’s certification o f Burkhalter’s right of appeal, which both Burkhalter and his attorney signed, states that this “is a plea

- bargained case and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). On July 7, 2010, we notified
Burkhalter that the trial co urt’s certification of his right to appeal had been filed in

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

this court, that the certification states that this is a plea

- bargain case and he has no right of appeal, and that the appeal may be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appe al filed a response on or before July 19, 2010, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. On July 22, 2010, we granted Burkhalter’s motion for extension of time to file a response to our July 7, 2010 letter, extending the deadl ine to file a response to no later than August 23, 2010. We have not received a response. Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: October 14, 2010
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, E. Todd Whittemore, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of Lehman Mortgage Trust 2007-1 (the "Exchange Act periodic
    reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic 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 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 report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
    their obligations under the servicing agreements 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 for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this 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 report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Custodian, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.,
    as Servicer, LaSalle Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Newport
    Management Corporation, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC,
    Newport Management Corporation, as Sub-Contractor for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.,
    U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
    Trustee and Paying Agent and Westlake Settlement Services, LLC, as
    Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC.

    Dated:   March 26, 2008


    /s/ E. Todd Whittemore
    E. Todd Whittemore

    Executive Vice President
    (Senior Officer in charge of the servicing function of Aurora Loan
    Services LLC, in its capacity as master servicer)

   Aurora Loan Services LLC, as Master Servicer
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      of Principal 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 Vision Acquisition I, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antti
      William Uusiheimala, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




/s/
              Antti William UusiheimalaAntti
              William UusiheimalaPrincipal
              Executive OfficerNovember
              20, 2007
#### STATE v. C. H. ROSS.

(Filed 24 September, 1930.)

Criminal Law F a — In this case held: defendant was twice tried for same offense, and judgment is arrested on appeal to Supreme Court.

Where a defendant is bound over to the County Court on two warrants for issuing worthless checks on different dates, and is acquitted as to one and convicted as to the other, and appeals to the Superior Court, and in the trial in the Superior Court the evidence relates to the charge upon which he had been acquitted in the County Court, upon the jury’s acceptance of his plea of former acquittal, it is error for the trial court to order another trial, and upon conviction therein the judgment will be arrested on appeal.

Appeal by defendant from *Barnhill, J.,*at April Term, 1930, of Pitt.

Criminal prosecution tried upon a warrant charging the defendant with uttering and delivering to Pitt Chevrolet Company on 16 January, 1929, a $35.00 check in violation of chapter 62, Public Laws, 1927,' generally known as the “Bad Check Law.”

Two warrants were issued against the defendant by J. I. Smith, justice of the peace, on the same day, one charging him with giving a $35.00 cheek to the Pitt Chevrolet Company in violation of the statute on 16 January, 1929, and the other with giving a $35.00 check to Pitt Chevrolet Company in violation of the statute on 13 February, 1929. The magistrate found probable cause and bound the defendant over to the County Court of Pitt County on both warrants. In the County Court he was convicted on the first warrant and acquitted on the.second, and from his conviction on the first, he appealed to the Superior Court. On the trial in the Superior Court, the evidence related to the check of 13 February, 1929, for' the issuance of which the defendant had previously been acquitted in the County Court; whereupon the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, accepting the defendant’s plea of former acquittal. The court then ordered another trial, assuming, no doubt, that the first trial was a nullity, as the evidence related to the check covered by the second warrant and not to the one covered by the first. The defendant entered a plea of “former jeopardy, former acquittal, and not guilty.”

Verdict: Guilty.

Motion in arrest of judgment overruled; exception.

Judgment: Fine of $50.00 and the costs.

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*462
      *Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*Julius Brown for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

It appears on the face of the record that the defendant has been tried twice in the Superior Court on the same warrant. He was acquitted on the first trial and convicted on the second. The Attorney-General confesses error. The judgment will be arrested. *S. v.*McKnight, 196 N. C., 259, 145 S. E., 281.

Error.
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

Heinz Binder (SBN 87908)

Robert G. Harris (SBN 124678)

BINDER & MALTER, LLP

2775 Park Avenue

Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: (408) 295-1700

Fax: (408) 295-1531

Email: Heinz@bindermalter.com

Email: Rob@bindermalter.com

Attorneys for TURN, the Utility Reform Network

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION

and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

 Debtors.

Case Nos. 19-30088 DM (Lead Case)

 19-30089 DM

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered 

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

☒ Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case 

No. 19-30088 DM.

Date: October 7, 2019

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, California 

DKT # 4025

JOINDER BY TURN IN UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S RESPONSE

TO MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURES AND COMMENTS REGARDING 

FIRST INTERIM FEE APPLICATIONS

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4054 Filed: 10/01/19 Entered: 10/01/19 16:01:27 Page 1 of

2
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

1

The Utility Reform Network (“TURN”) hereby joins in the United States Trustee’s Response 

to Motion to Approve Fee Procedures and Comments Regarding First Interim Fee Applications

[DKT. #4025]. 

These joint cases involve some 24 employed professionals with fees and costs accruing at a 

daily total in excess of $1 million. Fees could easily eclipse those incurred in any case in any case in 

history. Based on past experience, TURN expects PG&E to seek to recover these fees and costs 

from ratepayers. TURN has an obligation to ask that the Court disallow fees for the egregious 

billing practices highlighted by the U.S. Trustee in his filing and to ensure that what is allowed is 

both reasonable and necessary. 

The Fee Examiner in these case by his Motion to Approve Fee Procedures [Dkt. #3950] 

proposes appropriate tools to deal with some of the excesses already being seen in the time records 

summarized by the United States Trustee. With respect to travel time, TURN believes that the 

Court should award, as is set forth in the posted PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES IN JUDGE 

MONTALI’S COURT July 2018) ” ... up to two hours of compensation for non-working airplane 

travel time to account for inevitable delays for security and administration involved in air travel.” 

Dated: October 1, 2019 BINDER & MALTER, LLP

By: /s/ Robert G. Harris

Robert G. Harris

Attorneys for TURN, the Utility Reform 

Network

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4054 Filed: 10/01/19 Entered: 10/01/19 16:01:27 Page 2 of

2