alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 34.4

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S ATTESTATION REPORT CONCERNING SERVICING
ACTIVITIES OF COLLEGE LOAN CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2006

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

Board of Directors and Shareholders
College Loan Corporation

We have examined management's assertion, included in the
accompanying Management's Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria ("Management's Report"), that College Loan Corporation (the "Company")
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for asset backed
securitization transactions backed by student loan receivables listed on
Appendix B of Management's Report (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i),
1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which management has
determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with
respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the 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 for the Platform and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed
transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the
Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and
securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period
covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing
activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the
Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material
noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report
and that may have affected the Company's servicing activities during the period
covered by this report. 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 applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that College Loan
Corporation complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the asset backed securitization
transactions backed by student loan receivables is fairly stated, in all
material respects.

Irvine, California
March 29, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1780 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 521
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1780

                          [Report No. 110-236]

    To require the FCC, in enforcing its regulations concerning the 
 broadcast of indecent programming, to maintain a policy that a single 
               word or image may be considered indecent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2007

 Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
  McCain, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Brownback) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

                            December 5, 2007

               Reported by Mr. Inouye, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the FCC, in enforcing its regulations concerning the 
 broadcast of indecent programming, to maintain a policy that a single 
               word or image may be considered indecent.

    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 ``Protecting Children from Indecent 
Programming Act''.

SEC. 2. FCC MAY REGARD SINGLE WORD OR IMAGE AS INDECENT.

    Section 16 of the Public Telecommunications Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. 
303 note) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
    ``(c) Single Word or Image Policy.--In administering the 
regulations promulgated under subsection (a), the Commission shall 
maintain a policy that a single word or image may constitute indecent 
programming.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 521

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1780

                          [Report No. 110-236]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To require the FCC, in enforcing its regulations concerning the 
 broadcast of indecent programming, to maintain a policy that a single 
               word or image may be considered indecent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 5, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1916 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the program for the 

sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees by terminating the authority 

for the removal of chimpanzees from the system for research purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. VITTER, and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the program for the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees 

by terminating the authority for the removal of chimpanzees from the system for research purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SANCTUARY SYSTEM FOR SURPLUS CHIM4 PANZEES; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY FOR 

5 REMOVAL FROM SYSTEM FOR RESEARCH 

6 PURPOSES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section 481C of the 

8 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287a–3a) (added by 


cnoel on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 1916 IS

1 section 2 of Public Law 106–551) is amended in sub2 section (d)— 

3 (1) in paragraph (2), in subparagraph (J), by 

4 striking ‘‘If any chimpanzee is removed’’ and all that 

5 follows; and 

6 (2) in paragraph (3)— 

7 (A) in subparagraph (A)— 

8 (i) by striking clause (ii); and 

9 (ii) by striking ‘‘except as provided’’ 

10 in the matter preceding clause (i) and all 

11 that follows through ‘‘behavioral studies’’ 

12 and inserting the following: ‘‘except that 

13 the chimpanzee may be used for 

14 noninvasive behavioral studies’’; 

15 (B) by striking subparagraph (B); 

16 (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 

17 subparagraph (B); and 

18 (D) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesig19 nated), by striking ‘‘under subparagraphs (A) 

20 and (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘under subparagraph 

21 (A)’’. 

22 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Part E of title IV of 

23 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is 

24 amended by redesignating the second section 481C (added 


cnoel on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

•S 1916 IS

1 by section 204(a) of Public Law 106–505) as section 

2 481D. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC75 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,784
<SECURITIES>                                   297,257
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,894,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               404,063
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,597,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          468,849
<BONDS>                                     13,894,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       184,960
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,597,307
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               412,018
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  410,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,932
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 8.1

               [ON LETTERHEAD OF CASSELS BROCK & BLACKWELL LLP]

October 24, 2000


travelbyus.com ltd.
204-3237 King George Highway
South Surrey, British Columbia
V4P 1B7

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re:  Aviation Group, Inc.
     Form S-4 Registration Statement
     -------------------------------

The commentary contained under the heading "Federal Income Tax Considerations
Relating to the Arrangement - Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations"
contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 under the Securities Act of
1933 filed on or about October 24, 2000, as amended represents our legal opinion
as to the Canadian Federal income tax considerations relating to the Arrangement
insofar as such commentary relates to statements of law or legal conclusions.

We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and consent to the use of our name in connection
therewith.

Yours truly,

/s/  Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

CASSELS BROCK & BLACKWELL LLP
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21253

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ONE (1) ROLEX WATCH, Serial #A328055,

Defendant,

SIKAN ESSIEN,

Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-105

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

June 18, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sikan Essien appeals the default judgment entered in favor of

the Government in this 18 U.S.C. § 981 civil forfeiture proceeding

against One Rolex Watch, serial #A328055. Essien argues that the

search of his residence and the seizure of the Rolex watch violated

his Fourth Amendment rights; the district court erred in holding

that he was collaterally estopped from challenging the seizure of
No. 01-21253

-2-

the watch because he pleaded guilty to four counts of possession of

counterfeit checks; the Government was required to file a

forfeiture action within 90 days after a claim was filed for the

return of the seized property; and the Government did not present

any evidence showing that the watch was purchased with proceeds

derived from a federal crime. Because this forfeiture proceeding

commenced on August 22, 2000, prior to the August 23, 2000,

effective date of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA),

CAFRA is inapplicable to this case. See Pub. L. No. 106-185 § 21,

114 Stat. 202. Essien did not file a verified claim as required by

Rule C(6) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and

Maritime Claims. Therefore, the district court did not err in

entering a default judgment in favor of the Government. See 18

U.S.C. § 981(b)(2); United States v. One 1988 Dodge Pickup, 959

F.2d 37, 42 n.6 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. $38,570 United

States Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthis annual report of Safety Insurance Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,William J. Begley, Jr., Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andSecretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge:

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

·                     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and forthe periods presented in the Report.
| /s/ WILLIAM  J. BEGLEY, JR.              |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| William J. Begley, Jr.                   |
| *Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and* |
| *Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)*     |
| March 16, 2006                           |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DWAYNE LAMONT BURGESS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

J. RAYA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

P. MORALES; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 15-17462 

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00921-LJO-JLT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Dwayne Lamont Burgess appeals pro se from the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-17462 

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various 

constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo. Hooper v. County of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 2011). We 

affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Burgess’ First 

Amendment retaliation and conspiracy claims because a judgment in Burgess’ 

favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary proceedings. See

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (if “a judgment in favor of the 

plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . 

the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the 

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”); see also Edwards v. 

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (extending Heck to disciplinary proceedings).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Burgess’ 

excessive force claim as Heck-barred to the extent that Burgess alleged that 

defendants used pepper spray for a purpose other than to regain control. See Heck,

512 U.S. at 486-87; see also Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(force is not excessive when “applied in a good faith effort to restore discipline and 

order and not maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm”).
3 15-17462 

However, to the extent that Burgess alleged that he was exposed to pepper 

spray for a prolonged period of time despite alerting defendants to his health 

issues, Heck does not bar Burgess’ claims. See Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 

689, 696-98 (9th Cir. 2005) (claim not barred by Heck if the alleged use of 

excessive force occurred after the conduct on which the conviction was based). 

Because the district court relied only on Heck in dismissing this claim, we reverse 

the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings on this claim only.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
Exhibit 23.1 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.  and 333-179869) and into the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No.  and 333-203821), of our report dated September 28, 2015, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Radiant Logistics, Inc. appearing in this Annual Report on   Form  of Radiant Logistics, Inc. for the years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. 

/S/ PETERSON SULLIVAN LLP

Seattle, Washington 

September 28, 2015
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 17, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.204 Checkable Deposits and Currency** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 Annual Report of Asia Interactive Media Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and
on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to 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.
 
 
 Dated:March
31, 2009
  /s/Ken
Ng
 Ken Ng
 President,Chief
ExecutiveOfficer Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer,
Director
EXHIBIT 99a

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Gardenia
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Harry Miller, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
  Company.


|Date: March 31,
    2003 | /s/ Harry Miller
    _______________________
    Harry Miller, C.E.O and C.F.O
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Sandra Ann SPRUELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46615.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1973.

David F. Farris, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Criminal Dist. Atty., J. J. Heinemann and R. W. Crampton, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, *116State’s Atty. and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding- Judge.

This appeal results from a conviction for felony theft wherein the punishment was assessed at 10 years.

On April 4, 1972, appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to the indictment after waiving trial by jury.

The sole contention on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient in light of Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., to support the conviction. We do not agree.

After being sworn, the appellant took the stand and testified she had heard the indictment read. Then she was asked:

> “Q. Was each and every allegation contained in that indictment true and correct ?

> “A. Yes, sir.”

In Alvarez v. State, 374 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Cr.App.1964), this same or similar catch-all question was asked the defendant while he was on the stand, and this court held that the same constituted a judicial confession and needed no corroboration to support the conviction. See also Rodriquez v. State, 375 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Cr. App.1964); Sexton v. State, 476 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Cr.App. 1972).

Appellant does not dispute the fact there was a judicial confession, but relies upon the prosecutor’s subsequent questions when he attempted to track the indictment where he used the name Jim Reed rather than Bill Reed alleged in the indictment as the owner.

The record reflects the following:

> *“Q.*Then, you are the same Sandra Ann Spruell who on the 30th day of November, 1971, did unlawfully and fraudulently take from the possession of Jim Reed one man’s suit over the value of fifty dollars, the same being the corporal (sic) personal property and belonging to the said Mr. Reed without his consent and with the intent then and there on your part to deprive Mr. Reed of that property and to appropriate it to your own use and benefit ?

> “A. Yes, sir.

> “Q. This did occur here in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas?

> “A. Yes, sir.”

We hold that mistaken reference to the complaining witness’s first name was not sufficient to undo the judicial confession previously made.

We find the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment entered upon a plea of guilty.

The judgment is affirmed.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of U.S. Geothermal Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kerry D. Hawkley,
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:

| | 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.

Date: July 30, 2012

|/s/ Kerry D.
      Hawkley | 
|-------------------------- | 
|Kerry D. Hawkley           | 
|Chief Financial Officer    | 

---