alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Tactical Solution Partners, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ryan E. Kirch, Principal Financial Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ RYANE. KIRCH           
| | Ryan E. Kirch              
| | Principal Financial Officer
| |                            
| | Date: March 18, 2008       
| |                            



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-17-00683- CV

Jane Doe and John Doe, Appellants

v. Arguello Hope & Associate s, P LLC; P hili p K. Broder ick, Ind ividu ally; Andres A. Ar guello, In divid ually; S am antha Fe nw ich, Ind ividu ally; Schavon J. Jahn; and Alb ert

Zavala, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 433 RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. C2017 -04 22D, H ONO RAB LE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On November 1, 2017, we informed appellants that i t ap p ea re d from the cler k’s
rec ord that they wer e attempting to appea l from an interl o cu t o ry order that was not immediately appea lable under statute. We reque sted a re sponse explaining how we might exercise jurisdiction
over the appea l no later than November 17. To d at e, ap p el lants have not responde d to our letter. We theref ore dismiss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a) ; see also id. R. 42.3(c) (cour

t of appea ls may dism i s s i f ap p el lant does not comply with notice from cler k requiringresponse within certa in time).__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Field, a nd Bour land Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 5, 2017

2
#### De’Shon PITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE; T. Yates; Betty Davis; B.J. Ravizee, Grievance Coordinator; Awo Harvey, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7127.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

De’shon Pitt, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

De’shon Pitt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). Because Pitt may cure any deficiency by filing an amended complaint, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the judgment is not a final, appealable order. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Jesse V. MYERS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent.

No. 01-3343.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 12, 2002.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, RADER and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 13.2


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B)
UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934







In
connection with the Annual Report of Hollysys Automation Technologies Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter
Li, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
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 of the Company as of June 30, 2009 and results of
operations of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2009.





/s/ Peter LiName:
                        Peter
      LiTitle:
                        Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)Date:
                        September
      30,
2009





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of this Annual Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
#### Ex Parte Robert S. Chick.

No. 24825.

April 5, 1950.

Relator represented himself.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

Per Curiam:

The petition filed herein by Robert A. Chick alleges that he is confined in the state penitentiary by reason of a conviction in the district court of Denton County, Texas, dated March 31, 1949. It is further alleged that the judgment in said case provided for a term of not less than five nor more than twenty-five years; that this conviction was upon a plea of guilty before the court, after he had waived a jury.

We find a number of papers filed in this case which are not understandable and they will not be discussed further than the one question set out in his original application. In connection with this application, a certified copy of the judgment of the district court is attached, with a certificate of the clerk dated March 17, 1950. The judgment says: “It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the defendant Robert A. Chick is guilty of the offense of Robbery, as confessed by him in his said plea of Guilty herein made, and that he be punished by confinement in the State Penitentiary for a term of (25) Twenty-five years and that the State of Texas do have and recover of the said defendant Robert A. Chick all costs in this prosecution expended, for which execution will issue.”

*479It is also noted by a certified copy of the sentence that the court applied the indeterminate sentence law. This was proper under the statute.

There being no grounds alleged as a basis for the relief sought, the writ is by the court denied.
18571.

#### Redwine, State Revenue Commr., *v.*Browne-Vintners Co., Inc.

Argued May 11, 1954

Decided June 14, 1954.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, George E. Sims, Jr., F. Douglas King, Assistant Attorneys-General, John W. Wilcox, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, James H. Wilson, Jr.,*contra.

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

In all material respects this case is identical with *Redwine*v. *Schenley Industries,*ante, except that no plea of estoppel is here involved; consequently the ruling in division 1 of that decision is controlling here and requires a judgment of affirmance.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Head, J., who dissents.*
**EXHIBIT99.2**

 

**P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph A. Molino, Jr.,Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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/ Joseph A. Molino, Jr.   |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Joseph A. Molino, Jr.       |
| Principal Financial Officer |
| May 14, 2003                |

 

----
EX-35 (g)
(logo) WELLS FARGO


Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 03, 2007


NYMT Securities Corporation


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for New York Mortgage Trust 2006-1

Per Section 9.05(a) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of
03/01/2006, the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master
Servicer), hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion
thereof:


(A)     a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or such
other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, has
been made under such officer's supervision and

(B)     to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, in all
material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there has been
a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifying
each such failure known to such officer and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Barry Akers
Barry Akers
Vice President


Certified By:
/s/Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 20, 2010

p1213 

# Order

December 20, 2010

141712

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141712 COA: 291902 Wayne CC: 08-019071-FC ANTOINE DANEILL TRAMBLE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 12, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
197 La. 229

#### Succession of BANKER. Intervention of QUINN.

No. 34056.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1941.

Charles Mundy, of New Orleans, for appellant.

A. W. Spiller, of Hammond, and Allen B. Pierson, of Ponchatoula, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

Valentine Quinn instituted a suit in the district court against Leon Banker seeking to recover damages sustained as a result of assault and battery. From an adverse judgment she appealed devolutively to the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit. During the pendency of the appeal the defendant died on or about October 1, 1935, and W. A. Cobb, the administrator of the defendant’s succession, was made a party to the suit. The appeal was fixed for. trial for January 29, 1936, at which time it was continued and reassigned for a hearing for February 3, 1936. After submission the Court of Appeal gave the plaintiff judgment for $98, with legal interest from date of judicial demand, and all costs. The administrator of the defendant’s succession filed an account on January 7, 1936, in the district court which was approved and homologated February 1, 1936, during the pendency of the appeal. The defendant’s succession was composed entirely of personal property and the proceeds derived therefrom with the exception of $30, now in the hands of the administrator, was distributed. On May 18, 1936, Valentine Quinn, through her counsel applied to the district court for the issuance of a rule ordering the administrator and his bondsman to show cause why they should not be condemned in solido to pay her $98, interest and costs, the amount of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, and in the alternative that' the administrator be ordered to turn over to her the $30 remaining in his hands. The administrator interposed exceptions of no right or cause of action which were sustained by the lower court. She has appealed devolutively to this court.

Counsel for the administrator has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that’ this court is without jurisdiction. The amount claimed by the appellant in her main demand for $98 is below the jurisdictional limit of this court and the alternative claim for the distribution of the $30 remaining in the hands of the administrator is likewise below the jurisdictional limit of this court. Under the provisions of Section 10, Article 7 of the Constitution of 1921, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where the amount in dispute or the fund to be distributed does not exceed $2,000 exclusive of interest.

The judgment homologating the administrator’s account has become final and the only fund left to be distributed is the $30 now in the hands of the administrator. There is no other fund remaining for distribution. Under such circumstances, the amount remaining in the hands of the administrator for distribution would govern the appellate jurisdiction. Succession of *88Duran, 34 La.Ann. 585; Succession of McDowell, 35 La.Ann. 1025.

The demands involved herein are below the jurisdictional limit of the Court of Appeal. Section 29, Article 7 of the Constitution of 1921.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 50-302] 

# AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Issuance; Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a notice appearing in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 15, 2008 (73 FR 2553), which informed the public that the NRC issued Amendment No. 228 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-72 for Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant. This action is necessary to correct the date of issuance.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stewart N. Bailey, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-1321, e-mail:                         *SNB@nrc.gov*.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On page 2554, appearing near the top of the first column, after                     *Date of Issuance:*                     the date is corrected to read December 26, 2007.                 

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of January 2008.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Stewart N. Bailey, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

 [FR Doc. E8-1945 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
EXHIBIT 34.5


      Attestation Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
               for U. S. Bank National Association, as Custodian



Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Ste. 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Phone: (612) 343-1000
www.ey.com


             Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion,  included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance  with SEC Regulation AB Servicing  Criteria,  that U.S.
Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for the Corporate  Trust Asset Backed  Securities  platform (the Platform) as of
and for the year ended  December  31, 2006,  except for criteria  1122(d)(1)(i),
1122 (d)(1)(iii),  1122(d)(2)(i) through 1122(d)(2)(vii),  1122(d)(3)(i) through
1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(iv) through 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has
determined are not  applicable to the activities  performed by them with respect
to the servicing platform covered by this report.  Management is responsible for
the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was concluded in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis,  evidence  about the Company's  compliance  with the applicable
servicing  criteria  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as we  considered
necessary in the  circumstances.  Our examination  included testing of less than
all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the
Platform,  testing of less than all of the servicing  activities  related to the
Platform,   and  determining   whether  the  Company  processed  those  selected
transactions  and performed  those  selected  activities in compliance  with the
servicing  criteria.  Furthermore,  our procedures  were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report.  Our procedures  were not designed to determine  whether
errors may have  occurred  either prior to or  subsequent  to our tests that may
have  affected  the  balances or amounts  calculated  or reported by the Company
during the period  covered by this report for the selected  transactions  or any
other transactions.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal  determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
afore-mentioned  servicing  criteria as of and for the year ended  December  31,
2006, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------
February 26, 2007
EXHIBIT 10.1 - 4.29.14 - 01










FIRST AMENDMENT TO OWNERSHIP LIMIT WAIVER AGREEMENT (BLACKROCK)


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO OWNERSHIP LIMIT WAIVER AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of April 25, 2014, is between Lexington Realty Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the “Company”), and BlackRock, Inc. (for itself and on behalf of certain affiliated entities, as set forth herein), and amends that certain Ownership Limit Waiver Agreement, dated as of November 18, 2010 (the “Agreement”), between the Company and BlackRock, Inc.  Capitalized terms used, but not otherwise defined, in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. 


RECITALS


A.BlackRock, Inc. has requested a modification to the Agreement to increase the shares of Common Stock of the Company that the BlackRock Investors are permitted to Beneficially Own under the Agreement.  


B.Pursuant to subparagraph (a)(9) of Article IX of the Declaration, the Company’s Board of Trustees has adopted resolutions approving the Ownership Limit Waiver on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.


AGREEMENT


		
	1.
	AMENDMENT TO WAIVER OF OWNERSHIP LIMIT.  Section 1.1(A) of the Agreement is amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following:




“(A)     to the extent of up to 19% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Company (for this purpose, counting each Equity Share that is Beneficially Owned by any BlackRock Investor only once), which amount shall be adjusted as appropriate to reflect stock splits, reverse stock splits or similar transactions that affect all shares equally, and”


		
	2.
	REPRESENTATIONS.  BlackRock confirms that the representations and warranties set forth in the Agreement are accurate and have been accurate since the date of the Agreement.  Within fifteen (15) days of a written request by the Company, which shall not be made more than once per calendar year, BlackRock shall confirm to the Company that the representations and warranties set forth in the Agreement as accurate and have been accurate since the date of the Agreement.




 [Signature Page Follows]









Each of the parties has caused this Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized officers as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph hereof.




	
					
	THE COMPANY
	 
	BLACKROCK

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Lexington Realty Trust
	 
	BlackRock, Inc.

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ T. Wilson Eglin
	 
	By:
	/s/ Matthew J. Fitzgerald

	 
	Name: T. Wilson Eglin
	 
	 
	Matthew J. Fitzgerald

	 
	Title: Chief Executive Officer
	 
	 
	Managing Director
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, Stephen P.
Jackson, Jr., certify that this annual report on Form 10-K of Remington Arms
Company, Inc., to my knowledge, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. Date: March
 28, 2008
/s/ Stephen P. Jackson, Jr.Stephen P. Jackson, Jr.Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Corporate Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of the Examination of Rollo E. Briggs, Judgment Debtor, in Proceedings Supplementary to Execution upon the Application of Philo C. Wheeler and A. Ray Baldwin, Judgment Creditors, under a Judgment Recovered in an Action Entitled County Court, County of Cortland, N. Y., Philo C. Wheeler and A. Ray Baldwin, Plaintiffs, against Rollo S. Briggs, Defendant. William D. Tuttle, Appellant; Philo C. Wheeler and A. Ray Baldwin, Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### ALSAYA v. JOHNSON.

No. 16856.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 16, 1938.

For former opinion, see 178 So. 518.

Charles Mundy, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Claude L. Johnson, of New Orleans, in pro. per. '

McCALEB, Judge.

A reconsideration of this case convinces us of the correctness of our former decree.

For the reasons assigned, our original opinion and decree herein are reinstated as the final judgment of this court.

Original decree reinstated.