alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SunTrust
   MORTGAGE
                                                      SunTrust Mortgage, Inc
                                                      Post Office Box 26149
                                                      Richmond, VA 23260-6149
                                                      Toll Free 1.800.634.7928
                                                      www.suntrustmortgage.com

Citibank, N.A.
388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Attention: Citibank Agency & Trust (SASCO 2006-3H)


      Re: Annual Compliance Statement for SASCO 2006-3H


      In connection with the loans serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc, (the
"Company") pursuant to the Company's Servicing Agreement(s)/Purchase and
Sale Agreement(s) with Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB and any applicable
Reconstitution Agreement(s) (together, the "Transaction Agreements"), 1,
the undersigned officer, hereby certify the following as of December 31, 2006:


       (i)      The Company conducted a review of its activities during the
                immediately preceding calendar year (or applicable portion
                thereof) and of its performance under the Transaction
                Agreements during such period has been made under my
                supervision; and

      (ii}      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
                Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
                Transaction Agreements in all material respects throughout
                such calendar year (or applicable portion thereof), except
                that as of January 1, 2006, the Company did not have
                procedures for monitoring compliance with requirements as
                specified in the applicable transaction agreements governing
                SEC Regulation AB transactions. To address the absence of
                such procedures, the Company's management has undertaken and
                completed the following actions: (a) completed a review of
                each Transaction Agreement and identified if there was
                specific language affecting any of the Servicing Criteria
                outlined in Section 1122; (b) to the degree that the
                Transaction Agreements required specific procedures related
                to the servicing criteria, the Company's Reference Point
                Library (where all policies and procedures are maintained)
                was updated to this effect; (c) for each pool, a Control
                Matrix was completed (and is maintained on a current basis)
                identifying which Transaction Agreements control each pool;
                and (d) established a monthly review process where the
                Company's managers review key factors of performance under
                Transaction Agreements and rest and to a questionnaire
                indicating compliance with such factors.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereby certify the foregoing as of the date hereof.
/s/John R. Purcell, Jr.
-----------------------------
John R. Purcell, Jr.
Senior Vice President - Manager, Servicing Division

Date: February 27, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL S. GELSINGER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 193 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
<PAGE>

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Jimmy S.H. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of Mercer International Inc. (the
"Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
          period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) of the SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
          (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: May 12, 2003

                                       /s/ Jimmy S.H. Lee
                                       -----------------------
                                       Jimmy S.H. Lee
                                       Chief Executive Officer

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Mercer International Inc. and will be retained by Mercer
International Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

RONALD FLAMER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 295 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
#### HICKS v. DISTRICT GRAND LODGE NO. 21, GRAND UNITED ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS OF LOUISIANA et al.*

No. 16218.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 2, 1935.

Gill & Simon and Warren Simon, all of New Orleans, for Emily Stewart Foster, intervener.

Charles J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for Odom, intervener.

Loys Charbonnet, of New Orleans, for plaintiff appellee.

Frank B. Smith, of New Orleans, for defendant appellee.

*

 Rehearing denied Jan. 13, 1938.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This case has been before this court on two former occasions. See 158 So. 386, and 159 So. 413. The facts are stated at length in our former opinions. Suffice it to say that when last before us we ordered a remand for the purpose of proving which one of two claimants, Henry J. Odom or Emily Stewart Foster, was the heir of Washington Odom, and, as such entitled to the proceeds of a fraternal life insurance policy issued by Butler Lodge No. 1336 of the District Grand Lodge No. 21, Grand United Order of Odd Fellows.

• Emily Stewart *Foster,*as the universal legatee of Washington Odom, was by the judgment below recognized as his heir. An appeal was again taken on behalf of Henry J. Odom.

In this court counsel complains of the refusal of the trial court to permit proof that Henry J. Odom was a nephew of the deceased. We believe the evidence to have been properly excluded. It would not advantage the claim of Odom to prove his alleged relationship in view of the fact that the other claimant for the proceeds has established her claim as an instituted heir. A nephew is not a forced heir in Louisiana; consequently, the universal legatee has a prior claim. We see no reason to disturb the judgment appealed from.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HARRY McCALL, Judge ad hoc, participating in absence of Judge RICHARD W. LECHE.
#### Sarah L. Lincoln, as Administratrix, etc., of Charles Albert Lincoln, Deceased, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company and J. & A. McKechnie Brewing Company, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### HARDWICK v. CITY OF MONROE.

No. 5889.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 28, 1939.

J. B. Dawkins, of Monroe, for appellant.

Oliver & Digby, of Monroe, for appel-lee.

DREW, Judge,

This case arises under the Workmen’s Compensation Law of this State. Act No. 20 of 1914.

Plaintiff received an injury to his foot in the region of his ankle while in the employ of the defendant. He was furnished medical treatment and paid compensation, that is, he was paid his regular wages-for a period from the date of the injury, November 30th, 1937, until February 5th, 1938, at which time payments ceased.

Plaintiff filed this suit contending he is totally and permanently disabled from performing work of any reasonable character due to the injury. Defendant contends all disability had ceased on February 5th, 1938.

The lower court rendered judgment in favor of defendant, rejecting the demands of plaintiff and from that judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

The evidence in the case is very meager, consisting entirely of the testimony of plaintiff and one doctor, and for the defense, the testimony of two doctors.

The testimony given by the doctor testifying for plaintiff is based to some extent on an erroneous foundation, due to the fact that he predicated his treatment to a large extent upon the theory that plaintiff’s original injury was different and more severe than it really was. This was brought about by a misinterpretation of what the doctor who treated plaintiff meant by a cracked fibula in giving the doctor who testified for plaintiff a description of the injury received. On the other hand, the two doctors who testified for defendant and who had examined and treated plaintiff had made no examination of him from the time they were sure he should recover. We mention these facts to show that the evidence as a whole is not very satisfactory and not such as we would like to base an opinion on. Ordinarily under such circumstances, we would not hesitate to affirm the judgment, but in dealing with cases arising under the humanitarian law of compensation, we prefer to always make every effort to arrive at the true facts and satisfy ourselves that no injustice is being done. If the plaintiff has recovered, he is not entitled to compensation, and the defendant has been more than fair in paying him full wages during the period of disability, instead of 65% of his wages provided for by the compensation act. *355If he is still disabled, he is entitled to compensation, and we are of the opinion evidence can be procured to show with some certainty, at least, what his true condition is.

Under the circumstances, we deem it advisable under the authority granted us, and in the interest of justice, to remand the case to the lower court for further evidence regarding plaintiff’s condition.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court to be heard in accordance with the views herein expressed. All costs to abide a final decision of the case.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6515 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6515

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
             Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2022

    Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Roy, and Mr. Massie) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
    Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, 
     Education and Labor, Natural Resources, the Judiciary, House 
     Administration, Rules, and Appropriations, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
             Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

    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 ``Responsible Path to Full Obamacare 
Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND 
              THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

    (a) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.--Effective October 
1, 2022, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 
111-148) is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by 
such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
    (b) Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.--
Effective October 1, 2022, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) is repealed, and the provisions of law 
amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act 
had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6683
RICHARD MARTIN TALBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-96-1009-N) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Martin Tal bert, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Talbert v. Angelone , No. CA-96-1009-N (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 1997). 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
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50393-50394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6334]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Alfred Kubin''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as

[[Page 50394]]

amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 
19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the 
exhibition ``Alfred Kubin,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the Neue Galerie New York, Museum for German 
and Austrian Art, New York, New York, from on or about September 24, 
2008, until on or about January 26, 2009, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: August 19, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E8-19768 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL S. GELSINGER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 193 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DEMETRIOUS E. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 02-1518 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL

CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC

CAPITAL CARD,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.

(CA-00-593-3-H)

Submitted: November 25, 2002

Decided: December 20, 2002

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

R. Frost Branon, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. W. T.

Cranfill, Jr., Robert B. Meyer, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Charlotte,

North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Demetrious E. Thompson appeals the district court’s order granting

the motion for summary judgment filed by General Electric ("GE"),

and denying relief on his employment discrimination action, filed

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). 

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E. I.

DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts

in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

322-23 (1986). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242,

255 (1986). 

First, Thompson, an African American Muslim, asserts he was subjected to a hostile work environment. This claim is meritless. Thompson cannot establish he was subjected to severe and pervasive

discrimination. Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993);

Conner v. Scharader-Bridgeport, Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 179, 193 (4th

Cir. 2000). 

Second, Thompson asserts he was subjected to retaliatory treatment

for engaging in a protected activity, filing a complaint with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission. This claim is meritless.

Thompson establishes that he engaged in a protected activity, Carter

v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 460 (4th Cir. 1994), but he does not show this

caused him to be subjected to retaliatory treatment. Gibson v. Old

Town Trolley Tours of Washington, D.C., Inc., 160 F.3d 177, 180 (4th

Cir. 1998). 

2 THOMPSON v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to GE. 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. 

AFFIRMED

THOMPSON v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. 3
Exhibit 16.1

September 16, 2005

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

Commissioners:

We have read the statements made by Chyron Corporation Employees' 401(k) Plan (copy attached), which we understand will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Item 4.01 of Form 8-K, as part of Chyron's Form 8-K report dated September 13 , 2005.  We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in such Form 8-K.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)*




In connection with the Quarterly Report
of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the
“Partnership”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned, Kevin L. Foxx, President and Chief Executive Officer of SemGroup
Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C., and Alex G. Stallings, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of SemGroup Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C., certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to his knowledge:




(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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







/s/ Kevin L.
Foxx


Kevin L.
Foxx


President
and Chief Executive Officer of


SemGroup
Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C.,


general
partner of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.




November
13, 2009







/s/ Alex G.
Stallings


Alex G.
Stallings


Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary of


SemGroup
Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C.,


general
partner of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.




November
13, 2009









*A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report.
**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 Annual Report of Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “**Company**”) on Form 20-F for the period ended January 31, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, Caitlin Jeffs, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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.
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  August      18, 2008 |   |        /s/ Robert W. Dunlap                         |
|----------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |   | Robert      W. Dunlap                                    |
|                                   |   | Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                   |   | (principal      executive and financial officer)         |

----

----