alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-33.13
(logo) WestLake
SETTLEMENT SERVICES


Mark J. Girasole
President


ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


The Tax Outsourcing Service Agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (together with
all amendments thereto, the "Agreement"), between Aurora Loan Services and
WestLake Settlement Services, LLC.

I, Mark Girasole, the president of WestLake Settlement Services, certify to
Aurora Loan Services, with the knowledge and intent that it will rely upon this
certification, that:

(1) As of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, WestLake Settlement
Services, LLC has complied with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to WestLake (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"):

1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or
insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration
dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments,
provided that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30
calendar days prior to these dates, or such other number of days specified in
the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to
be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not
charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error
or omission.

WESTLAKE SETTLEMENT SERVICES


/s/ Mark Girasole
Mark Girasole, President
March 3, 2008


1 American Way * DFW 6-4-100 * Westlake, TX 76262 *T 817 699 5733 *
www.westlake.com
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in Registration Statements (No., 333-168029, 333-154402 and No. 333-154403) on Form S-8 of ChromaDex Corporation of our report dated March 16, 2011 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements, which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ChromaDex Corporation for the year ended January 1, 2011.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
|                           
|Schaumburg, Illinois       
|March 16, 2011
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 annual report of PSPP Holdings, Inc.
              (formerly Pitts & Spitts, Inc.)
on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ed Litwak, 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/ Ed Litwak
                              -------------------------
                              Ed Litwak
                              Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)


                              January 17, 2007
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4066 Filed: 10/02/19 Entered: 10/02/19 09:13:47 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4066 Filed: 10/02/19 Entered: 10/02/19 09:13:47 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4066 Filed: 10/02/19 Entered: 10/02/19 09:13:47 Page 3 of

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from JMC Group,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q
filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000746425
<NAME> JMC GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            4073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      761
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  7654
<PP&E>                                            1732
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2930
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               60
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        5637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8567
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3422
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1060)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (358)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (702)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (702)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5050 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:07:20 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5050 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:07:20 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5050 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:07:20 Page 3 of

3
#### M. L. LEDFORD, Administrator of the Estate of KAREN LOIS HARRIS, Deceased, v. MARION TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a Corporation.

(Filed 4 March, 1953.)

Appeal and Error § 40f—

The denial of a motion to strike certain portions of the complaint will not be disturbed on appeal when appellant has not been harmed or prejudiced thereby.

Appeal by defendant from *Pless, J.,*at Chambers in Marion, N. C., 29 December, 1952. From McDowell.

This is an action for wrongful death resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant.

The defendant in apt time moved to strike certain portions of the complaint. The motion was denied. The- defendant appeals and assigns error.

*Proctor •& Dcumeron and Hamrick •& Jones for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Everette C. Carnes for defendant, appellant.*

DeNNY, J.

No useful purpose would be served by setting out in detail the specific allegations of the complaint challenged by the motion to strike. However, if it be conceded that the complaint is not as concise and devoid of repetition as it might be in stating the plaintiff’s cause of action, we can see nothing in it that will be harmful or prejudicial to defendant’s rights.

In *Hinson v. Britt,*232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E. 2d 185, we said: “This Court does not correct errors of the Superior Court unless such errors preju-dicially affect the substantial rights of the party appealing. Hence, the denying or overruling of a motion to strike matter from a pleading under the provisions of G.S. 1-153 is not ground for reversal unless the record affirmatively reveals these two things : (1) That the matter is irrelevant or redundant; and (2) that its retention in the pleading will cause harm or injustice to the moving party,” citing *Teasley v. Teasley,*205 N.C. 604, 172 S.E. 197. *Neal v. Greyhound Corp.,*235 N.C. 225, 69 S.E. 2d 319; *Terry v. Coal Co.,*231 N.C. 103, 55 S.E. 2d 926; *Hawkins v. Moss,*222 N.C. 95, 21 S.E. 2d 873; *Hill v. Stansbury,*221 N.C. 339, 20 S.E. 2d 308; *McDonald v. Zimmerman,*206 N.C. 746, 175 S.E. 92.

The ruling of the court below is

Affirmed.
ex10_7.htm


 

EXHIBIT 10.7

 


Employment Contract of Joe Lam:

Employer: Wide Broad Group Limited    Employee: Lin Jinghao

Representative: Mr.Liu Ruisheng

 

Position: Chief Financial Officer, “CFO”

Job Duty: implement relevant responsibility as a “CFO” in the best interest of company

Effective Period: 2 years, Effective date: July 1st, 2009

Remuneration: HKD$ 520,000/year, it will be installed within 13 months and paid in the last day of each month. The 13th’s
salary will be paid with last month.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32505-32506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13738]



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



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE



Drug Enforcement Administration




Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration



    By Notice dated January 27, 2010, and published in the Federal 

Register on February 5, 2010, (75 FR 6062), Wildlife Laboratories, 1401 

Duff Drive, Suite 400, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, made application 

by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be 

registered as an importer of Etorphine Hydrochloride (9059), a basic 

class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for 

sale to its customers.

    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 

the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the 

registration of Wildlife Laboratories to import the basic class of 

controlled substance is consistent with the public interest, and with 

United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 

protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated 

Wildlife Laboratories to ensure that the company's registration is 

consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included 

inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 

verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 

a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 

to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, 

the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the 

basic class of controlled substance listed.





[[Page 32506]]





    Dated: May 28, 2010.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 

Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-13738 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,617,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  551,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,345,686
<PP&E>                                      67,939,918
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,837,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,084,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,510,725
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,175,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,084,386
<SALES>                                      4,220,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,272,830
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,940,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,163,576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                197,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            197,604
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   197,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Jesse Jassim, Petitioner, v New York Taxi and Limousine Commission et al., Respondents.

[773 NYS2d 288]

In this proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered November 15, 2002), the petition, challenging the determination of respondent Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), dated May 10, 2002, which found petitioner guilty of violating 35 RCNY 2-50 (b) and 2-66 (b) (refusal of service to passenger and failure to appear at a scheduled hearing) and assessed certain fines and points against him, unanimously granted, on the law, without costs, to the extent of annulling the determination and remanding the matter for proceedings de novo.

The record supports petitioner’s contention that the determination should be annulled because he never received notice of the complaint or of the administrative hearing. The uncontroverted evidence that petitioner never received the summons and that it was addressed to an incorrect zip code was sufficient to rebut the presumption that there was proper mail service and receipt, and, at the very least, mandated a hearing on that issue *(see Matter of Futterman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*264 AD2d 593, 595 [1999], *lv dismissed*94 NY2d 846 [1999]; *Vita v Heller,*97 AD2d 464 [1983]). Consequently, TLC’s determination that petitioner failed to appear at a scheduled hearing was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Moreover, there is record evidence of a meritorious defense to *247the refusal of service charge. Petitioner presents evidence wherein the taxi dispatcher not only admitted that she had been mistaken in identifying him as the driver of the taxi on the date in question, but identified another driver. Petitioner also submits his trip record for that date, which indicates that he never took a fare into Brooklyn, the site of the alleged violation, and that at the time of the alleged violation he was dropping off a passenger on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### MRS. RACHEL VIRGINIA WILLIAMS, by Her Next Friend, C. W. WILLIAMS, v. UNION COUNTY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., d.b.a. ELLEN FITZGERALD HOSPITAL.

(Filed 25 March, 1953.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Nettles, J.,*at 18 February Term, 1952, of UNION.

Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by tbe plaintiff, a patient in tbe defendant’s hospital, when she fell from a bed and injured her bip, due to tbe alleged negligence of tbe defendant’s employees.

Tbe case was here at tbe Fall Term, 1951, on plaintiff’s appeal from judgment overruling her demurrer to tbe defendant’s further defense. Tbe decision affirming tbe judgment below is reported in 234 N.C. 536, 67 S.E. 2d 662.

Tbe plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to show that she was a paying patient.

It was stipulated by tbe parties that “tbe defendant is an eleemosynary institution . . .”

At tbe close of tbe plaintiff’s evidence, tbe defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. Tbe motion was allowed, and from judgment based on such ruling tbe plaintiff appealed, assigning errors.

*Covington •& Lobdell for plaintiff, appellant.*

*J ones <& Small for defendant, appellee.*

Johnson, J.

Tbe judgment of nonsuit will be upheld on authority of what is said in the opinion filed simultaneously herewith in *Williams v. Randolph Hospital, Inc., ante,*387, which is precisely decisive of tbe question raised by tbe instant appeal.

Affirmed.

Paekeb, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of tbis case.

Eabnhill, J., dissents for tbe reasons stated in bis dissenting opinion in *Williams v. Hospital, Inc., ante,*387.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROSLIND BARBER-BANKS,

1

Respondent Below,

Appellant,

v.

DONNA DAULTON and MARCUS 

HOUSTON-DAULTON,

Petitioners Below,

Appellees.

§

§ No. 92, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware in and for 

§ New Castle County

§

§ File No. CN17-05159

§ Petition No. 17-30582

§ 

§

§

Submitted: December 14, 2018

 Decided: December 21, 2018

ORDER

Having considered the notice to show cause, the Court concludes that:

(1) On February 21, 2018, the appellant, Roslind Barber-Banks, filed a 

notice of appeal from a Family Court order granting guardianship of her daughter to 

the paternal grandparents. In June 2018, a notice to show cause was discharged after 

the Family Court granted Barber-Banks’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis as to 

the Family Court fee and a briefing scheduled was issued. On November 1, 2018, 

the Chief Deputy Clerk issued, by certified mail to the address Barber-Banks had

provided, a notice directing Barber-Banks to show cause why the appeal should not 

 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the appellants under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2

be dismissed for her failure to file an opening brief and appendix on or before 

October 8, 2018. 

(2) The certified notice to show cause was returned to the Court in an 

envelope marked “Return to Sender, Unclaimed, Unable to Forward.” On December 

3, 2018, the notice to show cause was re-sent by first class mail. Barber-Banks has 

failed to respond to the notice show cause within the required ten-day period. Under 

these circumstances, dismissal of this appeal is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
##### 



Exhibit 32

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

We, Wayland J. Russell, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Rainbow
Rentals, Inc. (the Company), and Michael A. Pecchia, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify that to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review
of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 of the
Company (the Report):



| |                                                                                                                                                         
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 the Company.

/s/ WAYLAND J. RUSSELL

Wayland J. Russell,
Rainbow Rentals, Inc.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ MICHAEL A. PECCHIA

Michael A. Pecchia,
Rainbow Rentals, Inc.
Chief Financial Officer

August 12, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,099,831
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  588,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,756,623
<PP&E>                                      68,334,101
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,541,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,094,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,383,680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,456,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,094,598
<SALES>                                      8,438,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,531,937
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,740,871
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,329,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                516,923
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            516,923
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   516,923
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.96
        

</TABLE>
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, Gary Corsi, 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 September 30, 2004, 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.
Exhibit 99.2:  Certification of Periodic Reports


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Universal  Beverages  Holdings  Corporation's (the "Company")
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31,  2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, G.  William  Gearheart,  Controller  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:

(1).    The Report  fully complies  with the  requirements  of  Section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 the Company.


                                                     By /s/ G. William Gearheart
Date: May 20, 2003                                   ---------------------------
                                                     G. William Gearheart
                                                     Controller
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Company to Acquire Title to Certain Real Estate in which the People of the State of New York and others are the parties interested.

Opinion by

Pratt, J.

Order refusing leave to file supplemental answer affirmed, with costs; order refusing to remove commissioners affirmed; upon the appeal from order confirming report reargument ordered.