alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of Manhattan Bancorp (the “Company”).

 

I, Dean Fletcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.                             The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

2.                              The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such reports.

 

 
| Dated: May 13, 2009 |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
|                     | /s/  Dean Fletcher |
|                     | Dean  Fletcher |
|                     | Executive  Vice President and |
|                     | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
   Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-59035) of CPC of America, Inc. of our
report dated March 12, 2008, relating to the financial statements, management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which
appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ CACCIAMATTA ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION


Irvine, California
March 17, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALI SAREINI,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-13961-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

DAVE BURNETT,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 31, 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order granting in part and rejecting in

part Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan’s report and recommendation, overruling Plaintiff’s

objections, granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s objections, and granting in part and

denying in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 72. The Court’s opinion and

order dismissed Plaintiff’s religious property claim, Plaintiff’s religious holiday banquet claim

under the Free Exercise Clause, and Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim. On April 14, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 74.

“[T]he court will not grant motions for . . . reconsideration that merely present the same

issues ruled upon by the court . . . . The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by

which the court and the parties or other persons entitled to be heard have been misled but also show

that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h).

A defect is“palpable” if it obviously misstates material facts or commits a “clear error of law.” See

Hayes v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 25 F. App’x 308, 315 (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2001) (explaining the

justifications for amending a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)). 

1:08-cv-13961-TLL-VMM Doc # 75 Filed 09/01/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 985
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration restates arguments that have already been provided to

and considered by the Court and states his disagreement with the Court’s March 31, 2011 opinion

and order. The motion does not, however, “demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and

the parties [were] misled” and consequently must be denied. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 74) is DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: August 31, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon Ali

Sareini, #203519, at Newberry Correctional Facility, 3001 Newberry

Avenue, Newberry, MI 49868 by first class U.S. mail on August 31,

2011.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:08-cv-13961-TLL-VMM Doc # 75 Filed 09/01/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 986
2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM Doc # 308 Filed 04/12/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 7938
EX-4.29



 Exhibit 4.29 

CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION 

OF 
 EXCO Land Company,
LLC 
 This CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION (this “Certificate”), dated December 5, 2013, has been duly executed and is filed
pursuant to Section 18-201 and 18-204 of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “Act”) to form a limited liability company (the “Company”) under the Act. 

1. Name. The name of the Company is “EXCO Land Company, LLC”. 

2. Registered Office; Registered Agent. The address of the registered office of the Company required to be maintained by Section
18-104 of the Act is Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. The name and address of the registered agent for service of process required to be maintained by Section 18-104 of the Act is The Corporation Trust
Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. 
 3. Limitation of Member Liability. To
the fullest extent the Act, as it exists on the date hereof or may hereafter be amended, permits the limitation or elimination of liability of members, no member or any of its affiliates shall be liable to the Company or the other members or their
successors or assigns for monetary damages for conduct as a member. Any amendment to or repeal of this Section 3 shall not adversely affect any right or protection of a member for or with respect to any acts or omissions of such member
occurring prior to such amendment or repeal. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation as of the
date first written above. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ W. Justin Clarke

		 	W. Justin Clarke
		 	Authorized Person
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30456 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALEX HAMILTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-89-1

- - - - - - - - - - March 30, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alex Hamilton, Jr., federal prisoner # 02598-095, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Western District of Texas. The district court for the Western District of Texas correctly construed this § 2241 motion as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferred the cause to the Middle District of Louisiana. Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr. , 911 F.2d 1111,No. 98-30456 -2- 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court addressed Hamilton’s § 2255 motion on the merits. Hamilton concedes and the record shows that he filed a prior § 2255 motion. Rather than addressing the merits of the claims, the district court should have dismissed Hamilton’s motion for failing to obtain this court’s permission pursuant to §§ 2244(b) and 2255 to file the motion. The district court is forbidden to consider Hamilton’s successive § 2255 motion which was filed without this court’s permission. See §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255; see In re Gassery , 116 F.3d 1051, 1051 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Hamilton’s successive § 2255 motion on this basis. Hamilton has filed a motion for release pending appeal, a supplemental memorandum in support of that motion, and an omnibus motion which essentially reargues the merits of his arguments on appeal. All of these motions are DENIED. AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
1

William Delgado

From: William Delgado

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 9:30 PM

To: Enrico@traverselegal.com; 'cathy.dittrich@traverselegal.com'

Cc: 'Steffans, Benjamin'; Helen Hsiao

Subject: Weather Underground v. Navigation Catalyst

Dear Mr. Schaefer:

I received by e-mail today the six (6) subpoenas to various third parties you have sent out for service. As I anticipated in

my letter of January 14, 2010, the information you seek through these subpoenas is either publicly available or within

NCS’s possession, custody, and/or control. Notably, though I informed you of NCS’s willingness to work with you to

ensure that Plaintiff obtained the information it sought without having to resort to burdening these third parties, I

received absolutely no response to my letter.

It is clear that you are simply sending out these subpoenas to burden and embarrass NCS. For that reason, NCS intends

to bring a motion for protective order asking the Court to prohibit the sending of any such similar subpoenas.

I believe we are scheduled to speak on Wednesday regarding the pending motion to compel. Please be ready to discuss

NCS’s motion for protective order as well.

Very truly yours,

William A. Delgado
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (SEC file Nos. 333-57413, 333-64505, and 333-73055) of
Condor Technology Solutions, Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2000 relating to
the financial statements, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We
also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 30,
2000 relating to the financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form
10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
McLean, Virginia
June 29, 2001
---

Exhibit 32.2

|CERTIFICATION OF 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, Ron Kalfus, Chief Financial Officer of MabCure Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

| | (a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      three month period ended September 30, 2008, and to which this
      certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                

|By:    | /s/ Ron Kalfus                                     | 
|------ | -------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Ron Kalfus                                         | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer                            | 
|       | (Principal Financial and
      Accounting Officer) | 
|Date:  | November 19, 2008                                  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of this Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3676 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3676

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the intent of 
      Congress with respect to the Federal carjacking prohibition.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3676

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the intent of 
      Congress with respect to the Federal carjacking prohibition.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Carjacking Correction Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT OF CONGRESS IN FEDERAL CARJACKING 
              PROHIBITION.

    Section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in 
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 
would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title'' after (as defined in 
section 1365 of this title''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Jerry Dean OATES, Appellant, v. Paula Diane COOK, Respondent..

No. WD 46890.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 21, 1993.

Harold L. Caskey, Butler, for appellant. John L. Pursley, Butler, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BERREY and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from motion to modify decree of dissolution of marriage. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3771 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3771

 To amend the formula for determining the Official Mail Allowance for 
                Members of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 1996

     Mr. Castle (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Blute, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts, Mr. Goss, Ms. Greene of Utah, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. LoBiondo, 
  Mr. McHale, Mr. Parker, Mr. Poshard, and Mr. Shays) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the formula for determining the Official Mail Allowance for 
                Members of the House of Representatives.

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

SECTION 1. FORMULA FOR DETERMINING OFFICIAL MAIL ALLOWANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 311(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by 
striking ``3 times''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to sessions of Congress beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                                                                       Exhibit I


                  Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
                      with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards

March 23, 2004

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, The CIT Group/Sales Financing,
Inc. (the "Company"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CIT Group Inc., has complied
in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers ("USAP").

As of and for this same period, CIT Group Inc. had in effect a financial
institution bond, computer crime policy and error and omissions policy in the
following amounts:

---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
            Insurance Type                             Coverage
---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Financial institution bond                            $60 million
---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Computer crime policy                                 $60 million
---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Errors and omissions                                  $10 million
---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------


/s/ Ron G. Arrington
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron G. Arrington
President
The CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc.

/s/ William L. Schumm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
William L. Schumm
Executive Vice President
The CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc.

/s/ Kenneth P. Reynolds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth P. Reynolds
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
The CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN DARNELL RAGLAND,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-15253

M. RABY, KEITH BERBICK, HONORABLE AVERN COHN

KEVIN KERR, NICOLAS SMISSICK,

DANIEL ROSE, ANDREW BELANGER,

BRIAN BOLASH, and ANTHONY CARIGNAN,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 61)

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that

defendants, police officers, violated his constitutional rights. The matter was referred to

a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary

judgment on his excessive force claim. The magistrate judge issued a report and

recommendation (MJRR) recommending that the motion be denied. 

II.

Plaintiff has not objected to the MJRR and the time for filing objections has

passed. Plaintiff’s failure to file objections to the MJRR waives any further right to

appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th
2

Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the MJRR releases the Court from its duty

to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

However, the Court has reviewed the record and agrees with the magistrate judge.

III.

Accordingly, the MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the

Court. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Kevin Ragland, 

191565, St. Louis Correctional Facility, 8585 N. Croswell Road, St. Louis, MI 48880 and

the attorneys of record on this date, March 15, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KEVIN MEYERS, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 08-14806

Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

CAROL R. HOWES, 

Respondent.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Komives’s Report and

Recommendation [dkt 13], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny

Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus [dkt 1]. The Report and Recommendation was

filed on June 21, 2010, and Petitioner filed an objection on July 15, 2010. Since Petitioner’s

objection was not timely submitted, the Court need not consider the objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2).

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the court file and the Report and Recommendation. As

a result of that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and enters it as the

findings and conclusions of this Court.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas

corpus [dkt 1] is DENIED.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 5, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on August 5, 2010.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q(the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of ManhattanBancorp (the “Company”).

 

I, Dean Fletcher, Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

1.                    The Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

2.                    The information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for theperiods presented in the financial statements included in such reports.

 

 
| Dated:  August 13, 2010 |                          |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                         |                          |
|                         |                          |
|                         | /s/  Dean Fletcher            |
|                         | Dean  Fletcher                |
|                         | Executive  Vice President and |
|                         | Chief  Financial Officer      |

 

----