alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                        Annual Statement of Compliance
                            Heller Financial, Inc.



The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Heller Financial, Inc., as
Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1,
1997, among Heller Equipment Asset Receivables Trust 1997-1, as Issuer, Heller
Funding Corporation, as Trust Depositor, Heller Financial, Inc., as Servicer,
and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, does
hereby certify that:

     1.   Capitalized terms used in this Annual Statement as to Compliance have
          their respective meanings set forth in the Sale and Servicing
          Agreement.
     2.   Heller Financial, Inc. is as of the date hereof the Servicer under the
          Sale and Servicing Agreement.
     3.   The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to execute and deliver
          this Annual Statement of Compliance.
     4.   This Statement is delivered pursuant to Section 9.05 of the Sale and
          Servicing Agreement.
     5.   A review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended
          December 31, 1997 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing
          Agreement was made under the undersigned's supervision.
     6.   Based on such review, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, the
          Servicer has performed or has caused to be performed in all material
          respects all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement
          and no Servicer Default has occurred or is continuing.


In Witness Whereof, I have affixed my signature hereto this 31st day of January,
1998.


                                   By:  /s/ Julia S. Landes
                                      -------------------------------
                                           Julia S. Landes
                                   Title:  Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30254-30255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15127]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Application

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application.

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

    The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain 
activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to 
section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

PRT-815942

    Applicant: National Biological Service, Iowa Cooperative Fish and 
Wildlife Unit, Ames, Iowa (Clay L. Pierce, Principal Investigator).
    The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) 
Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) within the Missouri River in 
Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri. Activities are proposed in conjunction 
with benthic fish population and habitat use studies along

[[Page 30255]]

the River. Data obtained will assist Federal agencies and others in 
planning activities on the River in compliance with the Endangered 
Species Act.
    Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological 
Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-
4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this 
publication.
    Documents and other information submitted with this application are 
available for review by any party who submits a written requests for a 
copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Division of Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort 
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/725-3536, x250); FAX: 
(612/725-3526).

    Dated: June 10, 1996.
John A. Blankenship,
Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 96-15127 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the three month ended April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Roger Crystal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and





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








Date: November 10, 2011





By: /s/ Dr. Roger Crystal


Dr. Roger Crystal


Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 855 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 855

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 21, 2010.
Whereas the House of Representatives has always honored the sacrifices made by 
        the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces;
Whereas the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent the members of the 
        Armed Forces and veterans who were wounded or became ill in combat in 
        the wars fought by the United States;
Whereas the Silver Star Families of America was formed to help the American 
        people remember the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill members of 
        the Armed Forces by designing and manufacturing Silver Star Service 
        Banners and Flags for that purpose;
Whereas the sole mission of the Silver Star Families of America is to evoke 
        memories of the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed Forces 
        on behalf of the United States through the presence of a Silver Star 
        Service Banner in a window or a Silver Star Flag flying;
Whereas the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed Forces on behalf of 
        the United States should never be forgotten; and
Whereas May 1 would be an appropriate date to designate as ``Silver Star Service 
        Banner Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the designation of 
``Silver Star Service Banner Day'' and calls upon the people of the United 
States to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony Michael Koch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Brad Jacobs, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-08068-PCT-DLR (ESW)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Anthony Michael Koch, who is confined in the Mohave County Jail, has 

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court 

ordered Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet to answer Plaintiff’s excessive force claim set forth 

in Count One (Doc. 5 at 4). Service was executed on each Defendant by Waiver of Service 

of Summons filed July 2, 2018 (Docs. 9, 10). Defendants have filed an Answer, and all 

issues are joined (Doc.13). 

 Pending before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion in Ex-Parte for Redetermination of 

Assignment of Counsel” (Doc. 21). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order denying 

Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Doc. 11). Plaintiff asserts that books which 

would assist him in navigating his case have been “confiscated by jail staff and they refuse 

to allow the Plaintiff to grieve this matter.” (Doc. 21 at 1). 

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See 

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate if
- 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 

the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error 

or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion 

for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new 

facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 

reasonable diligence”).

Nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion shows that the Court committed clear error or that its 

prior decision was manifestly unjust. Plaintiff has not shown an inability to articulate his 

claims and present arguments to the Court, as exemplified by the instant motion. Nor has 

he shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue access to 

legal materials, he may file an appropriate motion for injunctive relief. 

Having failed to show that exceptional circumstances are present and to satisfy the 

standard for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 21) will be denied. 

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED denying “Plaintiff’s Motion in Ex-Parte for Redetermination of 

Assignment of Counsel” (Doc. 21). 

 Dated this 25th day of January, 2019. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131521 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131521 

 COA: 269557 

Wexford CC: 05-007500-FC 

MARY LYNN COFFEL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 25, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor Flores,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Brandon Ekren, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00843-PHX-CDB

ORDER

Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint on 

September 17, 2020. Defendants filed their Response on October 8, 2020 and Plaintiff filed 

his Reply on October 21, 2020. Defendants were granted leave to file a Sur-Reply, which 

was filed on November 3, 2020. 

On November 5, 2020 the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation 

recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint be 

denied. In her Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 

they had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such 

objections has expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge as the order of this Court. (Doc. 121)

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00843-SRB-CDB Document 122 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 112)

Dated this 1st day of December, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-00843-SRB-CDB Document 122 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      OF 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,
      Mark
      Trimble, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      IntelliHome, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007
      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-QSB fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of IntelliHome, Inc.








By:
      /s/
      Mark Trimble


Name:
      Mark Trimble


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer


Dated:
      August 13, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 83 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 83

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 24, 2009.
Whereas the first Africans were brought involuntarily to the shores of America 
        as early as the 17th century;
Whereas these Africans in America and their descendants are now known as 
        African-Americans;
Whereas African-Americans suffered involuntary servitude and subsequently faced 
        the injustices of lynch mobs, segregation, and denial of basic, 
        fundamental rights;
Whereas despite involuntary servitude, African-Americans have made significant 
        contributions to the economic, educational, political, artistic, 
        literary, religious, scientific, and technological advancement of the 
        Americas;
Whereas in the face of injustices, United States citizens of good will and of 
        all races distinguished themselves with their commitment to the noble 
        ideals upon which the United States was founded and courageously fought 
        for the rights and freedom of African-Americans;
Whereas Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. lived and died to make real these noble 
        ideals;
Whereas the greatness of the United States is reflected in the historic election 
        of Barack Obama, an American of African ancestry, to the Office of the 
        President of the United States of America;
Whereas the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass inspired the 
        creation of Negro History Week, the precursor to Black History Month;
Whereas Negro History Week represented the culmination of Dr. Carter G. 
        Woodson's efforts to enhance knowledge of black history started through 
        the Journal of Negro History, published by Woodson's Association for the 
        Study of African-American Life and History; and
Whereas the month of February is officially celebrated as Black History Month, 
        which dates back to 1926, when Dr. Carter G. Woodson set aside a special 
        period of time in February to recognize the heritage and achievement of 
        Black Americans: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the significance of Black History Month as an 
        important time to recognize the contributions of African-Americans in 
        the Nation's history, and encourages the continued celebration of this 
        month to provide an opportunity for all peoples of the United States to 
        learn more about the past and to better understand the experiences that 
        have shaped the Nation; and
            (2) recognizes that the ethnic and racial diversity of the United 
        States enriches and strengthens the Nation.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Lee Roy DYKES, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 18406.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Aug. 17, 1993.

Lew Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for movant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

The trial judge denied movant’s motion filed under Rule 24.035 as it was not timely filed. Movant contends that the filing time of Rule 24.035(b) denied him due process of law. Missouri courts have repeatedly held that the time requirement does not violate due process. See *Lestourgeon v. State,*837 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Mo.App.1992).

The judgment is affirmed.

FLANIGAN, P.J., and GARRISON, J., concur.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Vision Acquisition III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antti WilliamUusiheimala, 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; 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/ Antii William
    UusiheimalaAntti
      William UusiheimalaPrincipal
      Executive OfficerMay
      5, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DUANE MCATEE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00017-JPB-JES-1)

Submitted: January 3, 2014 Decided: October 21, 2014

Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M. 

Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Clarksburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United 

States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Duane McAtee appeals his six-month sentence entered 

pursuant to his conviction for contempt of court. McAtee contends 

that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. 

We dismiss the appeal as moot. 

On January 6, 2014, while this appeal was pending, McAtee 

was released from incarceration. We may address sua sponte whether 

an issue on appeal presents “a live case or controversy . . . since 

mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the 

courts.” Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 

2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because McAtee has 

already served his term of imprisonment and has not identified any 

collateral consequences of it, there is no longer any live 

controversy regarding the length of his confinement. Therefore, 

his challenge to his sentence is moot. See United States v. Hardy, 

545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, McAtee’s appeal is dismissed as moot. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PAUL MCKENZIE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 181 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
.l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

~-FILED __ LODGED 

RECEIVED COPY --=~:::..=.:.:.:=-,.-===..::., 

JUN 1 1 2019 

BY 

C ERK US DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA TY 

DEPU 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

' 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

8 United States of America, No. CR-18-00223-TUC-RCC(DTF) 

STIPULATION OF EXHIBITS 

9 Plaintiff, 

10 V. 

11 Scott Daniel Warren, 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

. 28 

Defendant. 

Counsel stipulate the following Defense exhibits were presented to the jury for use 

during deliberation: 

201,202,203A,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,220,233,234,235,239,244,246 

and 247. 

Date Defense Counsel Signature 

Date Signature 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 275 Filed 06/11/19 Page 1 of 1
#### LONE STAR ENERGY STORAGE, INC. and Marcel Degraye v. TEXACADIAN FUELS, INC.

No. 95-0420.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 10, 1996.

ORDER

“Petitioners’ motion for rehearing of application for writ of error is granted without reference to the merits. The order of this Court of October 5,1995, denying application for writ of error is withdrawn.

The application for writ of error is granted without reference to the merits. The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. The joint motion to dismiss the cause is dismissed as moot.”