alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT 99(B)(ii)

                                                               February 21, 1997

ANNUAL SERVICING LETTER

The Board of Directors
Greenwood Trust Company and
Wilmington Trust Company:

We have examined management's assertion, included in its representation letter,
dated February 21, 1997, that Greenwood Trust Company ("GTC") maintained an
effective internal control structure over financial reporting as of December
31, 1996, insofar as such system relates to the servicing procedures provided
by GTC to prevent or detect errors or irregularities in amounts that would be
material in relation to the assets of the Discover Card Trust 1991E (the
"Trust") under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Sections 3.02, 4.03, 4.04,
4.05, 4.07, and 8.07, dated November 1, 1991 (the "Agreement").

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of the internal control structure over financial
reporting, testing, and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of
the internal control structure, and such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projections of any
evaluation of the internal control structure over financial reporting to future
periods are subject to the risk that the internal control structure may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that GTC maintained an effective
internal control structure as of December 31, 1996, insofar as such system
relates to the servicing procedures provided by GTC, to prevent or detect
errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the
assets of the Trust under the Agreement, taken as a whole, is fairly stated, in
all material respects, based upon criteria established in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission.

This report is intended for the information and use of the Board of Directors
and management of GTC, Wilmington Trust Company as Trustee, and the Investor
Certificateholders, and should not be used for any other purpose.

/s/

Deloitte & Touche LLP
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Unify Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended April 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”),that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periodcovered by the Report.
| July 26, 2005 |
|---------------|
|          | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM |
|          | Steven D. Bonham |
|          | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

*A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompaniesthis Report pursuant to Section 906 and shall not, except to the extentrequired by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.*

----
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jeffery David James , Appellant

No. 06

- 20

- 00021

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 007

- 0352

- 19 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss

, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find th at the bill of costs included an improper assessment of attorney fees . Therefore, we modify the bill of costs by deleting the
$300.00 assessme n t for attorney fees and affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Jeffery David James , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of co sts.

RENDERED OCTOBER 16, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
NO. 07-11-00185-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL A DECEMBER 14, 2011

CLINTON RAY WALL, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. B18690-1101; HONORABLE EDWARD LEE SELF, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Clinton Ray Wall, wa s convicted of theft afte r having been twice before convicted of the offense of theft. 1 Appellant pleaded true to two prior felony enhancements. 2 The jury assessed appellant’s pu nishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ID-TDCJ) for a term of 15 years. Appellant perfected this appeal. We affirm.

1 See T EXAS P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2011).

2 See T EXAS P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.42 (West Supp. 2011).2 Appellant = s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reve rsible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id . at 744-45. In compli ance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no e rror in the trial court = s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appe llant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a
response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to dete rmine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have f ound no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.3 Accordingly, counsel = s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court = s judgment is affirmed. 3

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after th is opinion is handed do wn, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with not ification of appellant = s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4.
<PAGE>

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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  NewCom  International,  Inc.,  a
Delaware  corporation,  (the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chris Marshall, acting Chief Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify the  following  pursuant to Section 18,  U.S.C.  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         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/ Chris Marshall
-----------------------------------------
Chris Marshall, Chief Executive Officer
November 19, 2003
# Delegation of Certain Authority and Assignment of Certain Functions Under Section 103(a)(1)(A) and Section 103(b)(1) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015

# Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative

In addition to the authorities and functions delegated and assigned to you by Executive Order 13701 of July 17, 2015, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the authority to enter into trade agreements, reserved to the President in Executive Order 13701, under section 103(a)(1)(A) and section 103(b)(1) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-26, title I), and assign to you that function.

                        You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         *Federal Register*.                    

[FR Doc. 2016-02084

Billing code 3190-W1-P
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JESUS ISRAEL MARTINEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50094

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00688-AHM-21

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 7, 2013

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Martinez appeals a district court order denying his motion pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for reduction of sentence based on the Fair Sentencing Act of

2010 (“FSA”) and subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Martinez’s

60 month sentence was the statutory mandatory minimum at the time of his

FILED

APR 08 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

sentencing. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2006). Because the FSA does not apply

to defendants sentenced before its effective date, United States v. Augustine, ___ F.3d

___, 2013 WL 1317037 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2013), we affirm the district court’s order.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE 

COMPANY, RSUI INDEMNITY 

COMPANY, and BERKLEY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiffs Below,

Appellants,

v.

DAVID H. MURDOCK, C. 

MICHAEL CARTER, DOLE FOOD 

COMPANY, INC. and DFC 

HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendants Below,

Appellees.

§

§ 

§ No. 144, 2018

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court of

§ the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N16C-01-104

§ 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Submitted: March 28, 2018

Decided: April 6, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 6

th day of April 2018, having considered the notice and supplemental 

notice of appeal from an interlocutory order under Supreme Court Rule 42, it appears 

to the Court that:

(1) This interlocutory appeal arises from a Superior Court opinion granting 

in part and denying in part the plaintiffs below-appellants’, Navigators Insurance 

Company, RSUI Indemnity Company, and Berkley Insurance Company (“the 

Insurers”), motion for summary judgment.1 The Insurers request an interlocutory 

 

1 Arch Ins. Co. v. Murdock, 2018 WL 1129110 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2018). 
2

appeal from the parts of the opinion holding: (i) Delaware law applied to the 

directors and officers liability policies at issue; and (ii) Delaware public policy did 

not prohibit the Insurers from paying for the fraud of the insureds. 

(2) On March 9, 2017, the Insurers filed an application for certification to 

take an interlocutory appeal. The defendants below-appellees, David H. Murdock, 

C. Michael Carter, Dole Food Company, Inc. and DFS Holdings, LLC (“the 

Insureds”), opposed the application. On March 28, 2018, the Superior Court denied 

the application after determining certification was not warranted under the principles 

and criteria of Supreme Court Rule 42(b).

2

 

(3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 

discretion of the Court.3 In the exercise of our discretion, we have concluded that 

the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for 

certification under Rule 42(b) and should be refused.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 

appeal is REFUSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

 

2 Arch Ins. Co. v. Murdock, 2018 WL 1560294 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2018). The Superior 

Court corrected the order on April 2, 2018. 

3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3585]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[AC-01; OTS No. 07098]


Security Federal Bank, a Federal Saving Bank, Tuscaloosa, 
Alabama; Approval of Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby give that on January 16, 1995, the Deputy 
Assistant Director, Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the 
application of Security Federal Bank, a Federal Savings Bank, 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, to convert to the stock form of organization. 
Copies of the application are available for inspection at the 
Information Services Division, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G 
Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20552, and the Southeast Regional Office, 
Office of Thrift Supervision, 1475 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30309.

    Dated: February 8, 1995.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision,
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3585 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
NO. 07-11-00099-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 28, 2012

DAVID LEE RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;

NO. 6056; HONORABLE KELLY G. MOORE, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

	Appellant, David Lee Rodriguez, was convicted of the offense of escape[footnoteRef:1] enhanced by a finding of true of two prior felony convictions.[footnoteRef:2]  Appellant was sentenced to serve a term of confinement of 70 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Corrections.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal.  We affirm. [1:  See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.06(a)(1) (West Supp. 2011).]  [2:  See id. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2011).] 

Appellants attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial courts judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response.  Appellant has filed a response.  By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  SeePenson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  As to appellant’s contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record does not support them and they are frivolous.  SeeSalinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).

Accordingly, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.[footnoteRef:3] [3:  Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.] 

								Mackey K. Hancock

									Justice

Do not publish.  

2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3711 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3711

 To ensure that no cost reduction or cash refund is due under certain 
    transportation cost-reimbursement contracts on the basis of the 
     forgiveness of certain covered loans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2022

  Mr. Braun (for himself and Ms. Duckworth) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that no cost reduction or cash refund is due under certain 
    transportation cost-reimbursement contracts on the basis of the 
     forgiveness of certain covered loans, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM LOAN FORGIVENESS OF 
              PAYROLL COSTS UNDER HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 
              PROJECT COST-REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 31.201-5 of title 48, Code 
of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), for the purposes of 
any cost-reimbursement contract awarded in accordance with section 112 
of title 23, United States Code, or section 5325 of title 49, United 
States Code, or any subcontract under such a contract, no cost 
reduction or cash refund (including through a reduced indirect cost 
rate) shall be due to the Department of Transportation or to a State 
transportation department, transit agency, or other recipient of 
assistance under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, or chapter 
53 of title 49, United States Code, on the basis of forgiveness of the 
payroll costs of a covered loan (as those terms are defined in section 
7A(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636m(a))) issued under the 
paycheck protection program under section 7(a)(36) of that Act (15 
U.S.C. 636(a)(36)).
    (b) Saving Provision.--Nothing in this section amends or exempts 
the prohibitions and liabilities under section 3729 of title 31, United 
States Code.
    (c) Termination.--This section ceases to be effective on June 30, 
2025.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donovan Chin, certify that:



| | (1) | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of E Com Ventures, Inc.;
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
June 1, 2007



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /S/ DONOVAN CHIN       
|    |  | Donovan Chin           
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8304-8305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3268]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8305]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

32 CFR Part 552, Subpart M


Land Use Policy for Fort Lewis, Yakima Training Center, and Camp 
Bonneville, Washington

AGENCY: Department of the Army, I Corps and Fort Lewis, DOD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 
34761), 7 July 1994, as an interim rule. This action establishes 32 CFR 
552, Subpart M, Land Use Policy for Fort Lewis, Yakima Training Center, 
and Camp Bonneville as a final rule. Uninterrupted military use of 
training areas is vital to the maintenance of US and Allied Armed 
Forces combat readiness. In addition, maneuver training areas may be 
dangerous to persons entering without warning provided during training 
scheduling or use permit processing.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis, ATTN: Range Officer, 
AZFH-PTM-R, Fort Lewis, Washington, 98433-5000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Virginia Lanoue or A. J. Weller, (206) 967-6165/6371.

Executive Order 12291

    This final rule has been classified as nonmajor.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. This final rule does not 
have a significant impact on small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain new reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. 3507).

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 552, Subpart M

    Military personnel, Government employees, Land use.

    Accordingly, subpart M to 32 CFR part 552 which was added as an 
interim rule at 59 FR 34761 (July 7, 1994) is adopted as final without 
change.
Kenneth L. Denton,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-3268 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M