alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,011,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,698,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,295
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,730,192
<PP&E>                                       5,965,886
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,450,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,526,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,430,344
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         48
<COMMON>                                        15,667
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,796,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,526,602
<SALES>                                     23,351,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,351,613
<CGS>                                       15,968,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,968,095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,351,301
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (6,600)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,156)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
#### Augustus H. Gorhman, Appellant, v. Aaron Innis, Assignee, etc., Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
#### Thomas Ganim’s Case.

Suffolk.

November 3, 1931.

November 3, 1931.

Present: Rugg, C.J., Pierce, Wait, Sanderson, & Field, JJ.

*Workmen’s Compensation Act,*Recommittal, Findings by Industrial Accident Board, Appeal.

The disposition of a motion, filed with the Industrial Accident Board in proceedings under the workmen’s compensation act, to recommit the case to the single member for the hearing of further evidence, lies in the discretion of the board, and no question of law is raised by a denial of the motion.

A decision by the Industrial Accident Board upon a question of fact in proceedings under the workmen’s compensation act must stand if it is supported by evidence; and when the case is brought to this court, the burden is upon the appellant to show that the record discloses that the finding was not so supported.

Certification to the Superior Court under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act of a decision by the Industrial Accident Board dismissing the employee’s claim for compensation.

It appeared that the employee was injured on September 19, 1925; that he was paid compensation under the act until October 26, 1925, when he returned to work; and that he continued to work until September 9, 1929. The issue raised at the hearing before the single member on February 25, 1930, related to alleged incapacity of the employee subsequent to September 9, 1929. The single member in his decision, after stating the evidence, stated, “I am satisfied, upon all the evidence, including the medical testimony and ... [a certain hospital] record . . . , that whatever incapacity the employee has suffered from since September 9, 1929, is not due to his injury of September 19, 1925. His claim for compensation is dismissed.”

The board in review denied a motion to recommit the case to the single member for the hearing of further evidence and affirmed and adopted the decision by the single mem*154ber. By order of *Gray,*J., in the Superior Court, a decree was entered dismissing the claim. The employee appealed.

*J. J. Twitchell,*for the claimant.

*G. B. Laurie,*Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

By the Court.

The decision of the single member was against the contentions of the employee. The employees’ motion before the reviewing board that his case be recommitted for further hearing upon the facts disclosed raised no question of law and was addressed entirely to the discretion of the board. The member’s decision was affirmed and adopted by the reviewing board. It has been decided too many times to require the citation of authorities that the decision of the board must stand if there is any evidence to support it. The burden of proof was on the employee to make out his case. The adverse decision by the board is demonstration that the employee did not sustain the burden of proof resting upon him. That was a pure question of fact. There is nothing in this record to take the case out of the general rule.

*Decree affirmed.*
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CarrekerCorporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending April30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Carreker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/    | JOHN D. CARREKER, JR.                           |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John D. Carreker, Jr.,  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |
|   |
| Dated: | June 9, 2004                                    |   |
|        |                                                 |        |  |

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly report of PSPP Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kyle Gotshalk, Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof) and Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



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



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





/s/ Kyle Gotshalk

Kyle Gotshalk

Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)

November 30, 2007
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

Antonio Ortiz

Texas State Bar No. 24074839

JORDAN, HOLZER & ORTIZ, PC

500 N. Shoreline, Suite 900

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Phone: (361) 884-5678

Fax: (361) 888-5555

Email: aortiz@jhwclaw.com

ecf@jhwclaw.com

Attorneys for A&J Electric Cable Corporation

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

PG&E CORPORATION

Debtor.

Case No. 19-30088

 Chapter 11

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION

OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Pursuant to B.L.R. 1001-2(a) and Civil L.R.11-3, Jose Antonio Ortiz, an active member in 

good standing of the bar of Texas, hereby applies for admission to practice in the Northern 

District of California on a pro hac vice basis representing A&J Electric Cable Corporation 

(“A&J”), in the above-entitled action.

In support of this application, I certify on oath that:

1. I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest 

court of another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above;

2. I agree to abide by the Standards of Professional Conduct set forth in Local Rule 11-4, 

and agree to become familiar with the Local Rules and the Bankruptcy Dispute 

Resolution Program of this Court; and

3. An attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who 

maintains an office within the State of California has been designated as co-counsel in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 504 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:56:52 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 

2

the above-entitled action. The name, address and telephone number of that attorney is: 

Mark V. Isola, SBN 154614 

Roger Brothers, SBN 118622 

BROTHERS SMITH LLP

2033 N. Main Street, Suite 720 

Walnut Creek, California 94596 

Telephone:925 944 9700 

Facsimile: 925 944 9701 

misola@brotherssmithlaw.com

rbrothers@brotherssmithlaw.com 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: February 20, 2019 

 

 

Antonio Ortiz 

Texas Bar No. 24074839 

JORDAN, HOLZER & ORTIZ, P.C.

500 North Shoreline Blvd., Suite 900 

Corpus Christi, TX 78401 

Telephone: (361) 884-5678 

Facsimile: (361) 888-5555 

Email: sjordan@jhwclaw.com

aortiz@jhwclaw.com

Attorneys for A&J Electric Cable 

Corporation

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 504 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:56:52 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4996-2 Filed: 12/05/19 Entered: 12/05/19 11:52:29 Page 1

of 2
EXHIBIT B 

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR 

SERVICES RENDERED BY MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

021 Non-Bankruptcy Litigation / Wildfire (Criminal) 2469.9 $1,463,529.50 

022 Non-Working Travel2

 110.7 $102,351.00 

023 Purchase Power Agreements (including Adversary Proceedings) 122.0 $96,355.00 

025 Regulatory Issues Including CPUC and FERC 754.7 $640,653.50 

026 Retention / Billing / Fee Applications: MTO 62.1 $40,157.00 

033 TUB - Tubbs Fire state court litigation (Judge Jackson) 1893.5 $1,363,148.00 

035 Kincade 289.6 $233,907.00 

TOTAL 5702.5 $3,940,101.00 

 

2

 MTO has been engaged in discussions with the Fee Examiner regarding the treatment of nonworking travel time in the First Interim Application following the hearing on the motion of the 

Fee Examiner on October 7, 2019. Until those discussions conclude, MTO has continued to bill 

non-working travel time at one half of the time recorded but will adjust these amounts once the 

issue has been resolved with the Fee Examiner and the Court has approved the First Interim 

Application. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4996-2 Filed: 12/05/19 Entered: 12/05/19 11:52:29 Page 2

of 2
A95A0587.

#### GEORGE v. SOUTHWIRE COMPANY.

(474 SE2d 768)

Decided July 11, 1996.

C. *H. Lumpkin, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Smith, Wallis & Scott, Kenneth A. Smith,*for appellee.

Beasley, Chief Judge.

In *Southwire Co. v. George,*266 Ga. 739 (470 SE2d 865) (1996), the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of this Court but remanded the case with the direction that we remand the case to the Board for further findings under the correct legal standard. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court, the judgment appealed is reversed, and the case is remanded for further findings.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded.*

*Pope, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.*
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Gary Corsi, certify that: 

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.);

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 quarter in the case of an annual 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 the 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:  August 12, 2004
#### In the Matter of JOHN T. DRY, Ex Parte.

(Filed 1 November, 1939.)

1. Insane Persons § 4—

A proceeding to have declared sane and competent a person theretofore declared incompetent is a summary proceeding not requiring service of notice on the guardian nor service of summons on the incompetent under C. S., 483 (3), it being necessary only that the incompetent be given notice.

2. Same—

A guardian of an incompetent may not appeal from the finding of the jury or the order of the clerk entered thereon declaring such person sane and competent in proceedings under O. S., 2287, the guardian having no interest adverse to such declaration and there being no right of appeal given him by statute.

Appeal by T. B. Mauney, guardian, from *Bobbitt, J.,*at February Term, 1939, of Cabarrus.

Appeal dismissed.

*R. L. Brown, Jr., for appellant.*

*Hartsell & Hartsell for appellee.*

Devin, J.

A petition to have John T. Dry, a resident of Cabarrus County, adjudged of sound mind and competent to manage his own affairs, was filed on his behalf by his brother, under the provisions of C. S., 2287. Pursuant to the procedure prescribed by that statute, a jury, which had been duly summoned and sworn, found John T. Dry competent, and returned report to that effect. The report was approved and filed by the clerk. Thereupon T. B. Mauney, who had previously been appointed guardian of John T. Dry by the clerk of the Superior *428Court of Stanly County, appeared specially and moved to dismiss tbe proceeding on tbe ground tbat no notice of tbe petition bad been served on bim. Tbe clerk denied tbe motion, and upon appeal to tbe judge of tbe Superior Court, tbe ruling of tbe clerk was affirmed and tbe proceedings were beld to bave been properly conducted in accordance witb tbe statute, and tbe guardian appealed to tbis Court.

Tbe statute under wbicb these proceedings for the adjudication of the competency of John T. Dry were conducted does not require tbat the guardian be' served witb notice. Only the non-sane person is mentioned in the statute as one to whom notice must be given. Tbe proceeding is summary, and the provisions of C. S., 483 (3), prescribing the method of service of summons in a civil action against an insane person, do not apply. There was nothing in the order appealed from relative to the guardianship such as would affect any substantial right of the appellant. He bad no interest adverse to the proceedings for Jobn T. Dry’s restoration to competency. No provision is made in the statute for an appeal from the finding of the jury or from the order of the clerk pursuant to such finding. *In re Sylivant,*212 N. C., 343, 193 S. E., 422. Tbe case of *Sims v. Sims,*121 N. C., 297, 28 S. E., 407, is not in point, since tbat case was decided before the enactment of the statute prescribing the procedure for restoration to competency of a non-sane person.

Tbe denial of tbe motion of tbe guardian to dismiss tbe proceeding did not present an appealable matter. Tbe judgment of tbe court below is affirmed and tbe

Appeal dismissed.
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 

Dennis F. Dunne (admitted pro hac vice) 

Samuel A. Khalil (admitted pro hac vice) 

MILBANK LLP 

55 Hudson Yards 

New York, New York 10001-2163 

Telephone: (212) 530-5000 

Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 

and 

Gregory A. Bray (SBN 115367) 

Thomas R. Kreller (SBN 161922) 

MILBANK LLP 

2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Telephone: (424) 386-4000 

Facsimile: (213) 629-5063 

Counsel for the Official Committee 

of Unsecured Creditors

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors.

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF THE 

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED 

CREDITORS REGARDING MOTION TO 

EXTEND BAR DATE 

Date: November 13, 2019 

Time: 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 450 Golden Gate Avenue 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Docket No. 4292 

 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). 

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “UCC”) appointed in the chapter 11 

cases of the above-captioned debtors (the “Debtors”), hereby reserves all of its rights with respect 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4588 Filed: 11/06/19 Entered: 11/06/19 13:23:53 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 

2 

44553.00001

to the relief sought in the Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(b) and 501 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 

3003(c) for Entry of an Order Extending the Bar Date (the “Bar Date Extension Motion”) [Docket 

No. 4292],1 including the right to be heard at the hearing on the Bar Date Extension Motion. 

It is the UCC’s understanding that the Debtors and the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants (the “TCC”) have reached an agreement to extend the Bar Date for the wildfire victims 

to December 31, 2019, as well as on certain additional notice procedures for the wildfire victims. 

This agreement is being memorialized in a stipulation to be filed with the Court in advance of the 

hearing. While the UCC believes a consensual resolution with respect to the Bar Date is preferable, 

the UCC has to file this reservation of rights because it will not have sufficient time to review and 

respond to the upcoming stipulation in advance of the objection deadline. 

 

Dated: November 6, 2019 

MILBANK LLP 

/s/ Gregory A. Bray . 

DENNIS F. DUNNE 

SAMUEL A. KHALIL 

GREGORY A. BRAY 

THOMAS R. KRELLER 

Counsel for the Official Committee of 

Unsecured Creditors 

 

1

 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Bar Date 

Extension Motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4588 Filed: 11/06/19 Entered: 11/06/19 13:23:53 Page 2 of

2
Exhibit 33.1.3.3

 

**Report on Assessment of Compliance**

 

**with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria**

 

1.            The undersigned authorized officer of LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the “Company”) is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as defined in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “Regulation AB Servicing Criteria”) for residential and commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the “Platform”). Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, the servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) are not applicable to the activities the Company performed with respect to the Platform.

 

2.            The Company used the criteria in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) to assess the compliance with the applicable Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.

 

3.            Under one of the services offered by the Company, some customers may elect to remit tax payments directly to tax agencies without having the Company remit those property tax payments through our tax payment service. We refer to these customers as “non-outsourced servicer customers.” With respect to these non-outsourced customers and the services the Company delivered pursuant to the servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4)(xi), the Company’s assertion is strictly limited to its processing of tax payments submitted through the Company’s tax payment service.

 

4.            With respect to servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4)(xii), the Company’s assertion is strictly limited to its processing of property tax penalty payments. The Company has determined that its servicer customers may also have access to systems that enable those servicers to process penalties through obligor escrow accounts. Management’s assessment of compliance does not relate to the actual or potential activities of other parties with access to obligor escrow accounts.

 

5.            Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company has complied in all material respects with the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria related to the servicing of the Platform taken as a whole.

 

6.            The registered public accounting firm of Grant Thornton, LLP, has issued an attestation report on the Company’s assessment of compliance with the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

Date: February 6, 2008

 

LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.

 

By: /s/ Robert Ige

| Name: | Robert Ige |
|-------|------------|

| Its: | Executive Vice President |
|------|--------------------------|