alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 27, 2017 Consent of Independent Auditor We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended March 31, 2017 of CAE Inc. of our report dated May 31, 2017, relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Exhibit incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F. We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333 97185 and 333-155366) of CAE Inc. of our report dated May 31, 2017 referred to above.   1CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy Permit No. A123498 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 1250, Rene-Levesque Boulevard West, Suite 2500, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3B 4Y1 T: +1 514 205 5000, F: +1 514 205 5675, www.pwc.com/ca PwCrefers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52946-52947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21519]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the

[[Page 52947]]

Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve 
Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may 
express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition 
of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the 
acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in 
section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 14, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Benefit Financial Group, Inc., Fort Smith, Arkansas; to become a 
bank holding company upon the conversion of its subsidiary bank, 
Benefit Bank, Fort Smith, Arkansas, from a federally chartered savings 
institution to a state chartered bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 25, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-21519 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
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 Advanced Digital Information Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Peter H. van Oppen, Chair 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
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2. The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                                    
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Dated: May 31, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ PETER H. VAN OPPEN                                                             
|                    |  |  |  | Peter H. van Oppen, Chair and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
# I I ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) RAND Corporation ) ) Under Contract Nos. W74V8H-06-C-0002 ) W74V8H-06-C-0001 ) FA7014-06-C-OOO 1 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60642, 60643

Paul E. Pompeo, Esq.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Srikanti Schaffner, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Carson, CA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 5 September 2017

Administrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60642, 60643, Appeals ofRAND Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREYD. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
EXHIBIT 13.2



CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of
Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alex Zuoli Xu, Co-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 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: April 19, 2013



|By: | /s/ Alex Zuoli
    Xu             | 
|--- | --------------------------------- | 
|    | Name: Alex Zuoli Xu               | 
|    | Title: Co-chief Financial Officer |
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeAbout UsFact Sheets    
 
 Keyword:
                
                Type:
                
                Sort:
                    RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAn error has occurred.
    Error: Fact Sheets is currently unavailable.

Popular fact sheets
    An error has occurred.
    Error: Popular fact sheets is currently unavailable.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS LE FURGE.

March 19, 1985.

Petition for certification granted.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

April 28, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00216

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.F., J.J.L., AND J.A.R., CHILDREN

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 02310 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter ’s record was due on April 17 , 20 20

, but was not filed. On April 27 , 20 20

, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting until Ma y 1, 2020, to file the reporter’s record. Although the reporter has failed to specify the other duties or activities which preclude her from working on the record , we GRANT the court reporter ’s requested extension and ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record in this court on or before Ma y 1, 2020 . The court reporter is reminded that this is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights

, which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 28th day of April, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7340

RONALD HAMILTON JAMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BENJAMIN SMITH, Sergeant; A. VINCENT, Corporal; DEPUTY GATTISON,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

NEW HANOVER COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-95-47)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Hamilton James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on June 9, 1995; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on August 16, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives

this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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
1

The Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3424

___________

Addie J. Skeens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of *

the Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 6, 2003

 Filed: March 10, 2003 

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Addie J. Skeens appeals the District Court’s1

 opinion affirming the denial of

supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Banks v.

Massanari, 258 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), we affirm.
-2-

In her September 1999 application and related documents, Skeens alleged

disability since January 1998 from back and leg pain related to prior injuries, from

carpal tunnel syndrome, and from insomnia. After a hearing, an administrative law

judge (ALJ) determined that Skeens’s capacity to perform sedentary work had not

been compromised by any nonexertional limitations and that, based on the MedicalVocational Guidelines (Grids), she was not disabled. 

The ALJ recited numerous valid reasons for finding Skeens not entirely

credible and for discounting the December 1999 opinion of orthopedist Harry Miller

that Skeens could not be gainfully employed due to her combined impairments. See

Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 720-21 (8th Cir. 2001) (weighing of treating

physicians’ opinions); Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (credibility

findings). The ALJ also properly used the Grids as a framework to guide his

decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.969a(d) (2002); Social Security Ruling 83-14, 1983

WL 31254, at *6 (Social Security Administration, 1983) (where it is clear that added

limitation or restriction has very little effect on exertional occupational base,

conclusion directed by Grids would not be affected). Further, the ALJ’s decision

demonstrates that he considered Skeens’s impairments in combination. See Hajek v.

Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

.

R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

March 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41485

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES ANTHONY FANTOZZI,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC Nos. C-03-CV-223

and C-01-CR-135-1

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Anthony Fantozzi, federal prisoner # 45227-083,

requests a certificate of ap pealability (COA) to appeal the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S .C. § 2255 motion as timebarred. He argues that the district court erred in using the date

of the finality of his conviction as the starting date for the oneyear time limit for filing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, rather than

the later date on which he discovered that his trial counsel had2

failed to perfect his appeal. He seeks a COA to present his claim

t hat he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his

trial counsel failed to perfect his direct appeal, among other

claims.

However, the record shows that on March 15, 2002, Fantozzi

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal

following the entry of the judgment of conviction and within the

10-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal, which clearly

evinced his intent to file a direct appeal. See Mosley v. Cozby

,

813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Consequently, Fantozzi’s motion

to proceed IFP should be construed as a timely notice of direct

appeal from the judgment of conviction, and we will not consider

the arguments raised in Fantozzi’s COA application because “[a]

motion to vacate sentence under 28 U. S.C. § 2255 will not be

entertained during the pendency of a direct appeal, inasmuch as the

disposition of the appeal may render the motion moot. ” Welsh v.

United States

, 404 F.2d 333, 333 (5th Cir. 1968), abrogated on

other grounds

, United States v. Ortega

, 859 F.2d 327, 334 (5th Cir.

1988).

Accordingly, we grant COA and v acate the district court’s

order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief and judgment entered on

September 24, 2003, and its or der denying Fantozzi’s motion for

reconsideration entered on Octo ber 31, 2003. On remand, the

distr ict court is instructed to (1) dismiss Fantozzi’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion without prejudice; (2) construe Fantozzi’s motion for3

leave to proceed IFP on appeal filed on March 15, 2002, as a timely

notice of direct appeal of its judgment entered on March 14, 2002;

and (3) direct its clerk to file Fantozzi’s motion for leave to

proceed IFP on appeal filed on March 15, 2002, as a notice of

d irect appeal from the district court’s judgment entered on

March 14, 2002.

APPLICATION FOR COA GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                       EXHIBIT 5

            [AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P. LETTERHEAD]


                               December 12, 2000



Wyndham International, Inc.
1950 Stemmons Freeway
Suite 6001
Dallas, Texas  75207

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We have acted as counsel to Wyndham International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the proposed registration of
3,400,000 shares of the Company's Class A Common Stock, par value $0.01 per
share (the "Class A Common Stock"), as described in a registration statement on
Form S-8 relating to the Class A Common Stock to be issued under the Company's
1997 Incentive Plan, as amended and restated as of June 29, 1999 (the "Plan"),
which registration statement is to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Registration Statement").

     We have, as counsel, examined such corporate records, certificates and
other documents and reviewed such questions of law as we have deemed necessary,
relevant or appropriate to enable us to render the opinions listed below. In
rendering such opinions, we have assumed the genuineness of all signatures and
the authenticity of all documents examined by us. As to various questions of
fact material to such opinions, we have relied upon representations of the
Company.

     Based upon such examination and representations, we advise you that, in our
opinion:
<PAGE>

     A.  The shares of Class A Common Stock to be issued under the Plan that are
to be registered pursuant to the Registration Statement have been duly and
validly authorized by the Company.

     B.  The shares of Class A Common Stock to be issued under the Plan that are
to be registered pursuant to the Registration Statement, when issued and
delivered in accordance with the Plan, will be validly issued, fully paid and
non-assessable.

     We consent to the reference to this firm in the Registration Statement and
to the filing of this opinion as Exhibit 5 to the Registration Statement.


                            Sincerely,

                            /s/ AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P.

                            Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(a)

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT



The Board of Directors
American Honda Finance Corporation

Members of the Board:

We have examined management's assertion about American Honda Finance
Corporation's (the Company's) compliance with the minimum servicing standards
set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers, as they relate to the servicing of
retail automobile loan contracts, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2003
included in the accompanying management's assertion. The minimum servicing
standards not considered by the Company to be applicable to the servicing of
retail automobile loans include procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section I - Custodial
Bank Accounts, procedures 1, 2, 3 and 4 of section III - Disbursements and
procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section V - Mortgage Loan Accounting. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, including
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. 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 minimum servicing
standards.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with insurance
requirements applicable to the Company as of and for the year ended March 31,
2003. The Company was not in compliance with minimum servicing standards for
maintaining an errors and omissions policy effective during the year ended March
31, 2003.

In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the third
paragraph, American Honda Finance Corporation has complied, in all material
respects, with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the
year ended March 31, 2003.


/s/ KPMG LLP


September 25, 2003