alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

APPOINTMENT TO JUDICIAL

CONDUCT BOARD

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 950

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13

th day of June, 2023, Marie Conley, Dauphin County, is hereby 

appointed as a member of the Judicial Conduct Board for a term expiring January 20, 

2024.
EXHIBIT 35.2
             SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
          HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-HI2 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      -------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
215 La. 307

#### REDON et ux. v. ARMSTRONG et ux.

No. 38368.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 25, 1949.

Harold J. Winling, of New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Sidney G. Roos and Robert J. Oster, both of New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appel-lees.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Armstrong, appealed suspensively to this court from a judgment of the district court cancelling a written lease contract and ordering them to vacate the premises located at 1708 St. Charles Avenue in the City of New Orleans for failure to pay promptly the rent due pursuant to the terms and conditions of the lease contract.

In this court plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal taken by defendants-appellants, “the motion being based on the insufficiency of the surety signing the appeal bond of $5,000”. This court sustained the motion insofar as it stayed or suspended the execution of the judgment appealed from, but denied it as to a de-volutive appeal. See Redon et ux. v. Armstrong et ux., 211 La. 165, 29 So.2d 708.

Plaintiffs leased the property to defendants for a term of three years, commencing on November 15, 1944, and ending on October 31, 1947, for and in consideration of a monthly rental of $200, represented by 36 promissory notes for $200 each, payable in advance on the first day of the month. Defendants failed to pay the rent for August, 1946, and plaintiffs, after notices to the defendants to vacate the premises, instituted this suit.

Defendants contended that the plaintiffs had previously, on several occasions, accepted the rental payments a few days after the maturity date of the note, and that such acceptance was a tacit modification by plaintiffs of the terms and conditions of the written lease contract.

On the trial of the case on its merits, the evidence disclosed that plaintiffs did accept the amount of rent in several instances a few days after the notes matured, but on these occasions they warned defendants that the rent must be paid promptly and that their acceptance was not to be considered as a waiver of their *475right to enforce the lease according to its terms and conditions.

Appellants made no appearance in this court, but, some time after the case was submitted, filed a brief in this court in which they ask that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and the lease maintained to the extent that appellants should have the right to exercise their option, contained .in the lease contract, to purchase the property for the sum of $25,000. Appellants in this brief cite no authority in support of their contention, and the record itself, in our opinion, discloses no error of law. On the contrary, since it was clearly established by the trial of the case on its merits that the defendants-lessees violated the terms and conditions of the -lease, the judgment based on these facts is entirely correct, and the plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the relief sought.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed; defendants-appellants to pay all costs.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no part.

MOISE, J., recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 06/30/2000 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 6-MONTHS ENDED 06/30/2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINACIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,552
<SECURITIES>                                    22,789
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                       666
<INVENTORY>                                     13,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,898
<PP&E>                                          16,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,155
<BONDS>                                          2,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,938
<SALES>                                         32,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,188
<CGS>                                           21,227
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  77
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,039
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,498
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,453
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,453
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54


</TABLE>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 10, 2008 / Notices 52727 

comments to the Web site: http:// 

www.improveirs.org. 

The agenda will include: Various IRS 

issues. 

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

Roy L. Block, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. E8–20945 Filed 9–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Advisory Committee on Minority 

Veterans; Notice of Availability of 

Report 

In compliance with section 13 of 

Public Law 92–463 (Federal Advisory 

Committee Act) notice is hereby given 

that the 2008 Annual Report of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

Advisory Committee on Minority 

Veterans has been issued. The report 

summarizes activities and 

recommendations of the Committee on 

matters relative to VA programs and 

policies affecting minority veterans. It is 

available for public inspection at two 

locations: 

Mr. Richard Yarnall, Federal Advisory 

Committee Desk, Library of Congress, 

Anglo-American Acquisition 

Division, Government Documents 

Section, Room LM–B42, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE., 

Washington DC 20540–4172, and 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Center 

for Minority Veterans, Suite 435, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington 

DC 20420. 

By Direction of the Secretary: 

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–20934 Filed 9–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
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 of Citizens  Communications Company (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Mary
Agnes Wilderotter, Chairman and Chief 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:

     (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/ Mary Agnes Wilderotter
------------------------------
Mary Agnes Wilderotter
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
May 5, 2006



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been  provided to Citizens  Communications  Company
and will be retained by Citizens  Communications  Company and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Eric R. Searles

v. Civil No. 02-cv-360-SM

Superintendent, Hillsborough County

Jail, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff’s “Emergency Injunction” request has been

referred to me for a Report and Recommendation. This is his

fourth “emergency” motion for injunctive relief (see document

nos. 8, 39, 53 and 64). The first three were denied, two of them

after full hearings. 

There are several reasons why this request should be denied

without further time or effort by defendants, defense counsel or

the court. First, Mrs. Healy, Captain Cusson and “jail employees

or staff of jail #5" are not defendants in this case. Second,

his denial of access to the law library was initially due to his

tuberculosis quarantine and then due to his restricted housing

upon conviction of his numerous disciplinaries. He does have

access to case law by request. Further, he has not pled or shown

actual injury. Third, the video of his cell at the time of his

alleged “beating” does not show the inside of the cell but it

Case 1:02-cv-00360-SM Document 77 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 2
2

does show that the officers were in the cell so briefly that

Searles’ claims appear improbable. They certainly are not a

basis to require the prison to video all cells. 

Finally, he has not exhausted administrative remedies. 

I recommend that the motion be denied. 

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 7, 2005

cc: Eric R. Searles, pro se

 John A. Curran, Esq.

 Carolyn M. Kirby, Esq.

Case 1:02-cv-00360-SM Document 77 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2
**
**Exhibit 12.1**

**Certification by the Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Qi Chen, certify that: 

1. I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 20-F, as amended by this amendment thereto, of MOGU Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [*Intentionally omitted*]; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
Date: July 3, 2019By: 
/s/ Qi Chen
Name: Qi ChenTitle: Chief Executive Officer**
176 La. 249

#### C. C. CORDILL INVESTMENT COMPANY, Inc., v. MAYER ISRAEL COMPANY, Inc.

No. 32042.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 3, 1933.

Dart & Dart, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Merrick, Schwarz, Guste, Barnett & Red-m-ann, of New Orleans, for appellee.

■ODOM, J.

In 1921 plaintiff leased to defendant a certain building on Canal street in New Orleans for a period of ten years. Four years later, the city of New Orleans ordered the repaving of Canal street, the cost to be borne ■by the adjacent property owners. The assessment apportioned to the property owned 'by the lessor amounted to $1,288.19. A controversy arosé between plaintiff and defendant as to which should pay this paving bill, plaintiff contending that the amount should be paid by defendant and defendant contending that it should be paid by plaintiff. Plaintiff brought the present suit, the purpose of which was to have defendant ordered to pay the bill. Plaintiff’s demand was rejected and it appealed to this court.

Plaintiff now-moves that the case be transferred to the Court of Appeal as the amount involved is less than $2,000. Counsel state in their motion that the appeal was inadvertently taken to this court.

It is perfectly clear that this court has no jurisdiction. Act No. 19 of 1912 provides that, in any case otherwise properly brought up on appeal to the Supreme Court or to any of the Courts of Appeal, the judges' of the courts shall have the right, in cases where the appellant shall have appealed to the wrong court, to transfer the case to the proper court instead of dismissing the appeal.

It. is therefore ordered that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal for the parish of Orleans and that said court proceed therewith in the same manner as if the same had been appealed to it originally, and that the appellant pay all such costs as may have been incurred in this court and such as may be incurred in the transfer as provided by said act.
EXHIBIT 10.54 
	 
	DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

        Our non-employee directors receive grants of common stock or stock options under our 2001 Stock Plan to compensate them for service on the Board of Directors each year, with the number of shares determined each year. Non-employee directors do not receive any cash compensation for service on the Board of Directors or its committees, other than reimbursement of reasonable travel expenses. 

        On January 17, 2005, we granted 10,000 shares of our common stock under our 2001 Stock Plan to our non-employee directors, Sandford D. Smith, Michael D. Kishbauch, Jay R. LaMarche, Athanase Lavidas, Ph.D., Peter J. Nelson, Burton E. Sobel, M.D., Mary C. Tanner and Elizabeth H. S. Wyatt, for their service on the Board during fiscal 2005.



	

        30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

FERNANDO AGUIRRE-QUINTERO, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR106 

ORDER 

 

This matter is before the court on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline 

for Filing Pretrial Motions [21]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. 

Defendant will be given an approximate 45-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by July 

27, 2023. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Pretrial Motions 

[21] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before July 27, 2023. 

2. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the 

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of 

the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between June 12, 2023 and July 27, 2023, shall be deemed 

excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the 

reason defendant's counsel required additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into 

consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. The failure to 

grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). 

 Dated this 13th day of June, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00106-RFR-SMB Doc # 22 Filed: 06/13/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 33
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          17,305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,947
<INVENTORY>                                     98,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               334,675
<PP&E>                                         423,768
<DEPRECIATION>                               (165,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,191,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,120
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,225
<OTHER-SE>                                     290,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,191,860
<SALES>                                        907,917
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               914,028
<CGS>                                          395,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  551,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               294,146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,615
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,379
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,379
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, Chief Financial 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.

/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)         May 15, 2007

<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
 and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities
 and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.