alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99(c)

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to

Household Finance Corporation ("HSBC" Finance")

HOUSEHOLD AUTO RECEIVABLES CORPORATION

HOUSEHOLD AUTOMOTIVE TRUST 2001-3

 

 

	I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of HSBC Finance (the "Master Servicer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 4.10 of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 9, 2001 among Household Automotive Trust 2001-3, as Issuer, Household Auto Receivables Corporation, as Seller, the Master Servicer and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (as successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association), as Indenture Trustee, (the "Agreement") that:

	1.  A review of the activities of the Master Servicer from January 1 through December 31, 2004 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Agreement throughout such Year. Based on such review, the Master Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth below.

			 	NONE

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 1st day of March, 2005.

 

 

					HSBC Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer

 

						/s/ Steven H. Smith			 
					Steven H. Smith

					Servicing Officer

 

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to

Household Finance Corporation ("HSBC" Finance")

HOUSEHOLD AUTO RECEIVABLES CORPORATION

HOUSEHOLD AUTOMOTIVE TRUST 2001-3

 

 

	I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of HSBC Finance, as Master Servicer, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 3.9 of the Indenture dated as of October 9, 2001 among Household Automotive Trust 2001-3, (the "Issuer") and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (as successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association), as Indenture Trustee, that:

	1.	A review of the activities of the Issuer from January 1 through December 31, 2004 and of its performance under the Indenture has been made under my supervision; and

To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under this Indenture and each Series Supplement throughout such year. Based on such review, the Issuer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the Indenture throughout such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth below.

				NONE

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 1st day of March, 2005.

 

 

					HSBC Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer

 

						/s/ Steven H. Smith			 
					Steven H. Smith

					Servicing Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32**








**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 Advance Display Technologies, Inc.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Matthew W.
      Shankle


Matthew
      W. Shankle


President,
      Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer





May
      14,
      2007
**Exhibit 99.1**

**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 theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Lee S. Hillman, Chairman of the Board of Directors,President 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 Actof 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.
#### STATE v. BARNETT

No. 283P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 706

Petition by defendant pro se for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 June 2001.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RASHAUN LEATHERBERY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 296 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer**     In connection with the Annual Report of Santarus, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald T. Proehl, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: March 7, 2006 /s/ GERALD T. PROEHL   Gerald T. Proehl   President and Chief Executive Officer        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**     In connection with the Annual Report of Santarus, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Debra P. Crawford, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: March 7, 2006 /s/ DEBRA P. CRAWFORD   Debra P. Crawford   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2416 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2416

 To apply laws that restrict the political speech of American citizens 
                         to media corporations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 2014

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To apply laws that restrict the political speech of American citizens 
                         to media corporations.

    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 ``Free All Speech Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF LAWS THAT RESTRICT THE POLITICAL SPEECH OF 
              AMERICAN CITIZENS TO MEDIA CORPORATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Any law that restricts the political speech of 
American citizens shall apply with equal force to media corporations, 
such as the New York Times, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), 
the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and the CBS Television 
Network.
    (b) No Application to American Citizens if Application to Media 
Corporations Found Unconstitutional.--To the extent that the 
application of a law to a media corporation under subsection (a) is 
found unconstitutional, such law shall have no force or effect with 
respect to American citizens.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0414

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ANDREW JAMES McCURDY, 

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 11, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 5 2022

12/05/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0414
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the third
quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB.

</LEGEND>

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                             8,425,417
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           0
<PP&E>                                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     9,234,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                      0
<BONDS>                                                           11,121,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        (1,978,073)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       9,234,322
<SALES>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     622,433
<CGS>                                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     242,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   972,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (592,986)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (592,986)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (592,986)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           (26.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         (26.91)



</TABLE>
No. 87-6545.

#### Tobias *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### James Sidney WINTERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45900.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1972.

Clyde Gordon, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Henry Oncken, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of felony theft on March 17, 1971. Punishment was assessed at ten years, but the imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation.

Among the conditions of probation was the requirement that appellant “(g) remain within the limits of Harris County, Texas, and change place of residence only with permission from the probation officer.”

On June 21, 1971, the State filed a motion to revoke probation and among the violations alleged was “said defendant failed to remain within the limits of Harris County, Texas, and change place of residence only with permission from the probation officer.”

On November 5, 1971, the court, after a hearing, entered judgment revoking probation which recited generally “that said defendant has violated the terms of his probation.”

Appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in revoking probation based on testimony that he did not receive permission of the probation officer to travel outside the State.

Probation Officer Elliott testified that appellant did not receive permission to leave Harris County or a signed travel permit to leave the State.

Deputy Sheriff Parsons testified that on June IS, 1971, he went to Wilcox, Arizona to arrest appellant on a felony car theft warrant and that he picked appellant up at a jail in Arizona and returned him to Harris County.

*323Appellant’s reliance on Whitney v. State, 472 S.W.2d 524, is misplaced in that the probationer in Whitney was only charged with changing his place of residence without permission from the probation officer. In the instant case, the State’s motion to revoke goes beyond the allegation in Whitney and charges appellant with having left Harris County without permission from the probation officer. The proof supports this allegation. This Court has held that the violation of a similar condition was sufficient cause alone to authorize the court to exercise its discretion in revoking probation. Creamer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 430 S.W.2d 500; Duck v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 427 S.W.2d 884; Miller v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 570, 330 S.W.2d 466.

Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s probation, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         584,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,004,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                   129,701
<INVENTORY>                                  1,592,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,372,014
<PP&E>                                       2,169,633
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,443,806
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,078,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,720,271
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,250
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,998,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,078,439
<SALES>                                      6,223,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,223,579
<CGS>                                        2,905,703
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,145,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,435
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,062)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,062)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.8

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Novadaq Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger Deck, 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.

 

| Date: March 22, 2017 |   | /s/ Roger Deck          |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Roger Deck              |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |
News United States Air Force
 Civilian tuition assistance increases to $1M, expands eligibilityPublished Dec. 6, 2016
                        
                        By Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS)  --**
                The Air Force has received an additional $400,000, for a total of $1 million, for its 2017 civilian tuition assistance program, and all permanent, full-time appropriated fund employees, including those in wage-grade positions, are now eligible to participate.
Employees are required to have a current acceptable performance appraisal on file and are eligible whether or not they occupy a centrally managed position.
New for 2017, the standard TA rates have increased to 75 percent of the cost of tuition, not to exceed $250 per semester hour versus $187.50. The new fiscal year limit increases by $1,000 in 2017, up to a maximum of $4,500. 
“Air Force civilian post-secondary tuition assistance is intended to support civilians in their continued self-development, including coursework at the associate, bachelor and master levels,” said Mark Schinzel, an Air Force Personnel Center human resources specialist. 
Starting in January, TA for all civilians will be administratively managed through the Air Force Automated Education Management System, except for members in the Palace Acquire formal training program. These interns will be added once the software is updated. Until January, civilians are asked to use the current paper SF 182, Request, Authorization, Agreement and Certification for Training Form, while applying the new rules.
“We want our people to use tuition assistance for courses that contribute to occupational and institutional competencies, special-interest needs and readiness by supporting the current and anticipated needs of the Air Force,” Schinzel said.
Additional changes for CTAP include TA allowed for one course at any given time. Course start and finish dates cannot overlap. TA is available for courses offered by a fully accredited academic institution but cannot be used for courses leading to a second degree of the same level already attained, such as a second bachelor or master’s degree; nor is TA available for doctorate-level course work.
Stay informed on the most current civilian tuition assistance information on the Civilian Force Development page on myPers. Click the Force Development link on the far left from the civilian employee landing page; CTAP can be found under the “General” heading.
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, go to the myPerswebsite. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following the instructions on the Air Force Retirees Services website.AFPC 



tuition assistance 



AETC 



civilian 



Randolph AFB
#### STATE v. SALMON

No. 570P00

Case below: 140 N.C. App. 567

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 March 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 March 2001.