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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard S. Paradise, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2010 (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

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. and will be retained by Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 15, 2010



/s/ Richard S. ParadiseRichard S. Paradise Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice PresidentDated: November 15, 2010


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
NO.

LEROY FLORES ALANIZ § IN THE COURT OF

§

vs. § CRIMINAL APPEALS,

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, TEXAS

MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF RULE 68.11, TEX. R. AP.P. P.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND JUDGES THEREOF:

COMES NOW, Leroy Flores Alaniz, Appellant pro se, and re

spectfully moves the Court to exercise its authority granted

by Rule 2, Tex. R. App. P., to suspecd operation of Rule 68.11,

Tex. R. App. P., in this case. In support thereofiCfAp.peM'an-bNn

FjleiMhow the following: COURT OF CMAUPPEALS COURTOFCRIMiNALAPPEALS ^ ^ ^

SE? 25 2Si5

i.

Abe? Acosfa, Ctsrfc • Abel Acosta, Clerk

1. Appellant is petitioning the Court for discretionary

review of the Eleventh Court of Appeals' decision affirming

the judgement of conviction and sentence entered against Appel

lant in Trial No. D-37,921, State v. Alaniz, 358th District

Court of Ector County, Texas (COA No. 11-12-00352-CR).

2. Rule 68.11, Tex. R. App. P., requires that, in addition

to the service required by Rule 9.5, Tex. R. App. P., Appellant

must also serve an additional copy of the petition to the State

Prosecuting Attorney.

3. As a prisoner confined in the Texas Department of Crim

inal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division, does not have

access to photocopying equipment and thus does not have the

means by which to make multiple copies in order to make the
required service upon the State Prosecuting Attorney.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays the Honorable

Court grants this motion and suspends operation of Rule 38.11,

supra, in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Leroy^lores Alaniz \—j

TDCJ No. 1826767

French M. Robertson Unit

12071 FM 3522

Abilene, TX 79601

Appellant, pro se

UNSWORN DECLARATION

I, Leroy Flores Alaniz, TDCJ No. 1826 767, being presently

incarcerated at the French M. Robertson Unit of the Texas Depart

ment of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division,

Located in Jones County, Texas, hereby declare under penalty

of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and placed

in the outgoing prison mailbox on this the *\ \% day of Septem

ber, 2015, to be mailed U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid,

addressed to:

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2308

EXECUTED on this the fj Q day of September, 2015.

Leroy Flores Alaniz
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fore

going motion has been duly served upon counsel for the opposing

party to this case on the oL~> day of September, 2015, by plac

ing same in the outgoing prison mailbox to be mailed U.S. Mail,

first-class postage prepaid, addressed,to:

Michael Bloch

Assistant District Attorney

Ector County Courthouse

300 N. Grant, Room 305

Odessa, Texas, 79761

Leroy Flores Alaniz t^~ZS
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Pliney Hubbs, Appellant, v. Herbert R. Baker, Justice of the Peace, and the Village of Mechanicville, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.
#### ANNYE U. ALEXANDER v. WILL ED THOMPSON et al.

(Filed 26 June, 1935.)

1. Judgments L f—

It is not error for tlie court to dismiss plaintiff’s action upon his finding, unchallenged, that the matters sought to be litigated therein are *res judicata.*

2. Same — Dismissal of action on plea of res judicata is error where defendant is granted affirmative relief upon prayer in answer.

When plaintiff’s suit to restrain foreclosure is dismissed upon the plea of *res judicata,*and defendants’ cross-action for foreclosure in equity is allowed, and a commissioner appointed to sell the lands and report the sale for confirmation, it is error to defendants’ prejudice for the court to dismiss the action, and the action should be retained for further orders.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Oranmer, J.,*12 October, 1934. From DURHAM.

Civil action to restrain foreclosure under power of sale in deed of trust, and for general relief.

In answer, tbe defendants plead *res judicata,*and by way of further plea ask for foreclosure in equity.

On tbe bearing, tbe court found that: (1) "Tbe subject-matter of tbis action has previously been adjudicated in separate and distinct judgments . . . ádversely to tbe plaintiff;” (2) granted tbe defendants’ prayer for foreclosure in equity; (3) appointed commissioners to make sale; (4) required that they report sale to- the court for confirmation; and (5) dismissed tbe action.

Plaintiff appeals and assigns as error “tbe action of tbe court in dismissing tbe action.”

8. *J. Bennett for plaintiff.*

*Bryant & J ones for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe dissolution of tbe temporary restraining order is not challenged by tbe appeal; nor is tbe foreclosure in equity questioned; tbe only assignment of error relates to tbe dismissal of tbe action.

*354There was no error in dismissing plaintiff’s alleged cause of action upon the finding, which is unchallenged, that the matters therein sought to be litigated are *res judicata.*14 R. C. L., 469.

There was error to the prejudice of the defendants in dismissing the action after granting their prayer for foreclosure in equity. To this end the cause should have been retained for further orders. *Warlick v. Reynolds,*151 N. C., 606, 66 S. E., 657.

Modified and affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Thomas Curran.

Motion granted.
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HCW Pension Real EstateFund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the ChiefExecutive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalentof the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
KPMG               KPMG LLP
                   Suite 900
                   10 South Broadway
                   St. Louis, MO 63102-1761


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Citibank, N.A.:

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying
Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that
Citibank, N.A. (the Custodian) complied with servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i),
1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB in connection with the
servicing of residential mortgage loans (other than loans held for its own
portfolio) for which the Custodian performs a particular servicing function
pursuant to a custodial agreement covering transactions that are serviced on
the Citilink, Mortgageserv, and Fidelity servicing platforms (the Platform),
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for
the Custodian's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assessment about the Custodian's
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Custodian's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Custodian processed those selected transactions and performed
those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.
Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and
servicing activities performed by the Custodian 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 Custodian
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Custodian's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Custodian complied with
certain servicing criteria outlined in Exhibit A in the accompanying
Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material
respects.


                              /s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
February 22, 2008



       KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
        member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Lavinia Lally, a Creditor of Mary *944Eagan, Deceased, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent.

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county affirmed,

with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion,

Jenks, P. J., .Hirschberg, Burr, Thomas and-Carr, JJ.,-concurred.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors

Chapter 11

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(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.

Resources Global Professionals_____ Zoe Partners, LP

Name of Transferor Name of Transferee

Name and Current Address of

Transferor:

Resources Global Professionals

17101 Armstrong Ave.

Irvine, CA 92614

Attn: Denise Barker

Name and Address where notices and payments 

to transferee should be sent: 

Zoe Partners, LP

c/o PKF O’Connor Davies

500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 301

Harrison, NY 10528

Attn: Christian Tannure

Schedule/Claim No. Creditor Name Amount Debtor Case No.

Claim No. 2098 Resources Global 

Professionals

$311,053.85 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 19-30089

Schedule F 

(#1032409 & 3.3074)

Resources Global 

Professionals

$308,140.00 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 19-30089

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: , 2020

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. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5269 Filed: 01/06/20 Entered: 01/06/20 12:20:39 Page 1 of

3
ZOE PARTNERS, LP

c/o PKF O'Connor Davies500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 301Harrison, NY 10528Attn: Christian Tannure

311,053.85

100

ZOE PARTNERS, LP

31

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5269 Filed: 01/06/20 Entered: 01/06/20 12:20:39 Page 2 of

3
308,140.00

100

ZOE PARTNERS, LP

ZOE PARTNERS, LPc/o PKF O'Connor Davies500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 301Harrison, NY 10528Attn: Christian Tannure

31

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5269 Filed: 01/06/20 Entered: 01/06/20 12:20:39 Page 3 of

3
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of NeurogesX, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeurogesX, Inc.

Dated: March 26, 2009



By:

/s/    ANTHONY A.
DITONNOAnthony A. DiTonno President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)By:

/s/    STEPHEN F.
GHIGLIERIStephen F. Ghiglieri Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 14, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2381 Lower Tribunal No. 20-1066A

________________ 

### K. B., a juvenile , Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Scott M. Bernstein, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sonia Perez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Certification 
Pursuant to Section 906 
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, R. Lucas Hamilton, CEO, President & Chief Accounting Officer of All State Properties Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | (2) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                          

Dated: May 23, 2011



|                                                    |  |                                                                                                                       
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. Lucas Hamilton                               |  | /s/ R. Lucas Hamilton_________________                                                                                
|R. Lucas Hamilton
CEO
(Principal Executive Officer) |  | R. Lucas Hamilton
President & Chief Accounting Officer 
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are                           ( print page 32779)                        set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).                

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 23, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1. John V. Tippmann, Sr., as an individual, and John V. Tippman, Sr.; John and Helen McCarthy; Richard and Sally Ley; John Tippman, Jr.; Patrick Tippman, and Brian and Jennifer Backstrom; all of Fort Wayne Indiana, acting as a group acting in concert; and Keith E. Busse, as an individual; Keith E. Busse Family Investment Company, LLC; and Aaron R. Busse*, all of Fort Wayne, Indiana, also as a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of Tower Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Tower Bank & Trust Company, both of Fort Wayne, Indiana.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 3, 2010.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-13813 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### GRACE M. BLADES and Husband, W. B. BLADES, v. FLOYD M. SIMMONS.

(Filed 5 March, 1930.)

Injunctions X> b — Where record does not show that plaintiff’s action is invalid continuance on ground of irreparable injury will he upheld.

Where the defendant sets up that the plaintiff’s cause of action is invalid because a parol trust in favor of a grantor in a deed cannot be created by oral evidence, and it does not appear from the record that the alleged trust is to be established by oral evidence, and the judgment recites that a continuance of the restraining order will not irreparably injure the defendant and that a dissolution might cause great injury to the plaintiff, the judgment continuing the order to the hearing will be affirmed.

Appeal by defendant from au order of *Nunn, J.,*at Chambers, on 26 August, 1929, continuing a restraining order to the hearing. From CraveN.

Affirmed.

*Moore & Dunn and Warren •& Warren for plaintiffs.*

*J. F. Duncan and Ward & Ward for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

It is alleged in the complaint that in the course of negotiations between *W.*B. Blades and the defendant the parties agreed that the plaintiffs should convey to the defendant a certain lot in the city of New Bern for the purpose of securing the payment of $20,000 with interest, and that upon payment of this amount the defendant should reconvey the lot to the *feme*plaintiff. The complaint and the answer raise issues of fact which, nothing else appearing, would require the intervention of a jury; but the defendant alleges that the plaintiffs’ cause of action is invalid because a parol trust cannot be created by agreement of the parties in favor of the grantors in the deed or either of them. *We*may say without debating this question that it does not *445necessarily appear from the record that the creation of the alleged trust is to be established, if at all, by oral testimony, and upon the facts as disclosed by the record we find no sufficient cause for reversing the judgment. The judgment contains the recital that a continuance of the restraining order will not irreparably harm the defendant and that a dissolution of it might cause great injury to the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.