alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report (the “Report”)on the Form 10-K of Monarchy Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2013, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jose Perez, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer,Secretary and Director, 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 and belief:

 

1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.The information contained in this Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 

Date: February 13, 2013

 

          *“JOSEPEREZ”*

Jose Perez

          ChiefExecutive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,

            President,Secretary and Director
EXHIBIT 31.4





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 7241,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, James E. Lauter, certify that:


|   |                                                                                                                   
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to 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.




Date:April 30, 2015/s/ James E. LauterJames E. Lauter,Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
#### ZINKHAM *v.*LINAWEAVER.

Juvenile Court.

*United States*v. *West, ante,*12, applied and followed.

No. 2062.

Submitted October 14, 1909.

Decided November 2, 1909.

Hearing oil an appeal by the respondent to a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia discharging the relator.

*Affirmed.*

*Mr. Daniel W. Baker,*United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, *Mr. Edward H. Thomas,*Corporation Counsel, and *Mr. F. Sprigg Perry,*Assistant United States Attorney, for the appellant.

*Mr. W. A. Coomhe*for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal by Louis E. Zinkham, superintendent of the workhouse for the District of Columbia, from an order of the supreme court of the District' of Columbia discharging appellee, Otto Linaweaver, upon a writ of habeas corpus. Appellee, at the time of his release, was confined in the workhouse of the District under a sentence of the juvenile court for failure to support his wife and minor child. The decision of this court in the case of *United States*v. *West, ante,*12,. present term, disposes fully of this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed with costs, and it is so ordered.

*Affirmed.*
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40973 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE GREGORIO ESTRADA, also known as Jose, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-95-CR-307-7

- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Gregorio Estrada challenges his sentence for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Estrada contends that the United States Sentencing Commission violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights when it promulgated Sentencing Guidelines that permit the leader of a conspiracy to receive a sentence less severe than that received by a minor participant in the conspiracy.No. 97-40973 -2- Estrada’s argument is unavailing because he was not sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines. Rather, he was sentenced pursuant to the terms of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). A sentence imposed in accordance with § 841 violates neither the defendant’s rights under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. See United States v. Rojas-Martinez , 968 F.2d 415, 419-20 (5th Cir. 1992). Estrada’s claim is also unavailing because a defendant cannot attack his sentence solely on the ground that a codefendant received a lesser one. See United States v. Boyd , 885 F.2d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Estrada’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Jan. 19Published Jan. 19, 2018
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Nicholas Koetz
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – On this look around the Air Force Ohio Air National Guard Airmen support theater security in Estonia, combat aviation advisors are authorized to wear a brown beret, and virtual reality is used in an adaptive flight training study. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Nicholas Koetz. 
For previous episodes, click **here**for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- Researchers test virtual reality Adaptive Flight Training Study
- Quiet Professionals don brown beretEstonia 



Ohio ANG 



Around the Air Force 



Featured Videos 



Theater Security 



VR Flight Training 



ATAF 



Brown Beret
Exhibit 33.2




Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB


(Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas)









Management's Assertion of Compliance




Management of the Trust & Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectively the “Company”) is responsible for assessing the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission to determine which criteria are applicable to the Company in respect of the servicing platform described below.  Management has determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows:






Platform:  The Nissan Auto Receivables 2008-B Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction and the Nissan Auto Receivables 2011-A Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction (the “Platform”).






Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), except for the following criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(v)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).  With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances.






Period:  Year ended March 31, 2013 (the “Period”).






With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:





1.  The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.






2.  The Company’s management has assessed the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.  In performing this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.






3.  Based on such assessment as of and for the Period, the Company has complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.






KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.










DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY











By: /s/ Robert Frier




Name: Robert Frier


Its: Managing Director









DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS











By: /s/ Jenna Kaufman




Name: Jenna Kaufman


Its: Director











By: /s/ Irene Siegel




Name: Irene Siegel


Its: Vice President








Dated: May 24, 2013
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 20 minutes 
p.m.), the House adjourned, under its previous order, until tomorrow, 
Tuesday, May 2, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

                          ____________________
```
#### Herman Goelz, appellant, v. Benjamin W. Carlow, respondent.

[Argued March 27th, 1911.

Decided June 19th, 1911.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson.

*Mr. William S.*Sluhr, for the appellant.

*Messrs.*Lum, *Tamblyn &*Colyer, for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Stevenson.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Bogekt, Vredenburgh, CONGDON, SULLIVAN — 11.

*For reversal*— None.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,691<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,072
<PP&E>                                          15,791<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,895
<BONDS>                                        130,443
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,814
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,578<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,251<F5>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,609<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                       850
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,487
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,487
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
<FN>
<F1> REFLECTED NET OF THE ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.
<F2> REFLECTED NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION.
<F3> COMPRISED OF COMMON STOCK AND CLASS B STOCK.
<F4> COMPRISED OF NET REVENUES.
<F5> COMPRISED OF OPERATING COSTS AND EXPENSES EXCLUDING
        DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION.
<F6> COMPRISED OF: (A) DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION, AND (B)
        CORPORATE GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS





We hereby consent to the use by SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the “Trust”) of our name and to the inclusion of information taken from the reports listed below in the Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on or about March 9, 2018, including any amendments thereto:





December 31, 2017, SandRidge Mississippian Trust I Interest in Certain Properties located in Oklahoma — SEC Price Case


December 31, 2016, SandRidge Mississippian Trust I Interest in Certain Properties located in Oklahoma — SEC Price Case


December 31, 2015, SandRidge Mississippian Trust I Interest in Certain Properties located in Oklahoma — SEC Price Case








CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:/s/ J. Zane MeekinsJ. Zane MeekinsExecutive Vice President





Fort Worth, Texas


March 9, 2018
Exhibit 99.45
 
  Theratechnologies announces results for the first quarter 2011
 Commercial activities now underway in the United States 
 Montréal, Canada  April 12, 2011 EGRIFTA ® www.theratech.com www.sedar.com
 First quarter financial highlights included
 Ø
    
    Consolidated revenues were up significantly in the quarter reflecting early product
sales to the Companys U.S. partnerØ
    
    R&D expenses were down 27% in the quarterØ
    
    Continued Balance Sheet strength with a cash position of $56,327,000 at quarter end
 EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ®
  Financial Highlights
  Consolidated revenues EGRIFTA ®
 Cost of Sales EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ®
 Research and development (R&D) expenses EGRIFTA ®
 Theratechnologies Inc.    




---



##### 



Selling and market development expenses
 General and administrative expenses
 Net Financial Charges
   Net loss
 Financial Position
   About Theratechnologies
 EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ®
 EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ®
 2




---



##### 



Additional Information about Theratechnologies
 www.theratech.com www.sedar.com
 Forward-Looking Information
 EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ®
 EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ®
 EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ® EGRIFTA ®
  www.sedar.com
  3




---



##### 



Information:
 communications@theratech.com
 ltanguay@theratech.com
 4
News United States Air Force
 AF announces 2016 Larry O. Spencer Innovation Award recipientsPublished Nov. 1, 2017
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Alexx Pons
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials have announced the recipients of the 2016 Gen. Larry O. Spencer Innovation Awards.
This Air Force-level award recognizes an individual or team whose actions demonstrate innovation in cost and manpower savings to improve efficiency, operational readiness and replication of the innovation across the Air Force enterprise.
The winners are:
Individual: Master Sgt. Andrew J. Kehl, 52nd Civil Engineer Squadron, Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. Kehl led multiple cost-saving initiatives and process improvement events with Air Force-wide impact, including an asset management plan which saved $61 million dollars. Kehl also implemented an application programming interface submission which standardized Air Force vehicle training and saved 57,000 annual man-hours.
Team: The Logistics Information Technology Innovation Team, Headquarters Air Force Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection, the Pentagon. The team spearheaded the consolidation of 357 Log IT systems, which provided a cost avoidance of $330 million over the future year’s defense program. The team also identified 159 highest-risk systems, revised processes/standard work and eliminated $205 million in duplicative system costs.
Additional information about the award can be found on myPers. Select “any” from the dropdown menu and search “Spencer.”
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, go to myPers. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following these instructions.following these instructions
http://www.afpc.af.mil/myPers/Gen. Larry O. Spencer Innovation Award 



innovation 



Pentagon 



AETC 



Joint Base San Antonio 



Spangdahlem AB 



52nd Civil Engineer Squadron 



Logistics IT 



AFPC 



Air Forces Personnel Center
News United States Air Force
 386th ECES emergency management team responds to real-world HAZMAT materialPublished June 4, 2018
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Joshua King
                        
                        
                        386th AEW/PA
                **SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNS) --**
                The 386th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron emergency management team responded to unknown chemicals in unmarked barrels, May 29 and 30, 2018, at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia.
When the 19 unmarked barrels were found - 13 at one site and six at another across base - emergency management got to work on a plan to examine and identify their contents.
“This didn’t differ very much from the exercises we conduct,” said Staff Sgt. Dallas Christian, 386th ECES emergency management plans NCO in charge, deployed from Ramstein Air Base, Germany. “We practiced everything we were going to do and it was smooth and went the way it was supposed to.”
Emergency management trains for these situations bi-annually and never know when a real-world scenario will happen, said Master Sgt. Terri Adams, 386th ECES emergency management flight chief.
“We had to come out to the two sites and look at the barrels to try and determine what we thought was in them,” Christian said. “This was the first time I’ve built an operations type plan, as well as the first time in my eight and a half years in the Air Force that I actually had to really do my job, which is a good thing.”
“Our detectors can break down chemicals and identify what they are based on their properties,” Adams said. “We found six barrels with chemical mixtures that we were unable to identify. We are going to work with a local laboratory to determine what those mixtures are.”
The EM team sampled 19 barrels for potentially harmful chemicals. There is no potential hazard from these chemicals to the base populace.
Of the 19 unmarked barrels, 15 were filled with corrosive rubber removal substances used to clean runways. The other four were sent off for testing.
Airmen from the base fire department, medical group, safety office and bio-environmental office were there to support the EM team as they conducted their tests.
“The team and all of the other units did excellent,” Adams said. “Nobody thought we would be able to go in and sample 19 barrels within a couple hours, but we did it and the results prove themselves. They got the job done and they rocked it.”safety 



medical 



fire 



HAZMAT 



emergency management 



Ramstein AB 



laboratory 



Chemical 



386th ECES 



386th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron 



bio-environmental 



US Air Forces Central Command 



AFCENT
#### Shepard, Admr., Appellee, *v.*Wilson et al., Appellees; Jones, Appellant.

(Decided November 21, 1938.)

*192
      *Mr. Oliver Bailey,*for appellee, William C. Shepard, administrator.

*Mr. Charles K. Pulse,*for appellees, Charles Mott, John Mott, Lavanda Leeds Sprotte, Francis Leeds Bassie and Leonora Leeds Holmes.

*Mr. Louis J. Kull,*for appellees, Jessie Shepard Wilson and Mary Shepard Townsley.

*Messrs. Gatch, McLaughlin & Gatch,*for appellant, Blanche Lewis Jones.

Ross, J.

The question presented to this court involves the construction of Section 10503-4, paragraph 8, General Code, providing:

> *“8.*If there be no paternal grandparent or no maternal grandparent, then such one-half to; the lineal descendants, if any, of such deceased grandparents, *per stirpes;*if there be no such lineal descendants, then to the surviving grandparent or grandparents or their lineal descendants, *per stirpes;*if there be no surviving grandparents or their lineal descendants, then to the next of kin of the intestate. There shall be no representation among such next of kin.”

The mother of decedent’s father married three times, and left lineal descendants from each marriage. The Probate Court held that all of such lineal descendants were entitled to share in the estate of the decedent, whether their ancestor was the first, second or third husband of the grandmother of decedent.

The appellant, who is a descendant of the first husband, claims that the section of the code referred to uses the word “grandparents” instead of “grandparent” — “then such one-half to the lineal descendants, if any, of such deceased grandparents.” The earlier form of the section used the word “grandparent.” We follow the Probate Court in its conclusion.

*193Section 10213, G-eneral Code', provides:

> “In the interpretation of part third, unless the context shows that another sense was intended, the word ‘person’ includes a private corporation; ‘writing’ includes printing; ‘oath’ includes affirmation; ‘of unsound mind’ includes every species of mental deficiency or derangement; ‘bond’ includes an undertaking; ‘and’ may be read ‘or,’ and ‘or’ read ‘and,’ if the sense requires it. "Words in the present tense include a future tense, and in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders. Words in the plural include the singular, and in the singular include the plural number. This enumeration shall not be construed to require a strict construction of other general words in this part.”

The singular or plural have therefore no particular significance, there being nothing in the section to indicate that such was the intention of the Legislature.

An examination of the law previous to the present amendment shows that the Legislature in a number of cases distinguished between blood of the whole and half blood. The present law is notable by reason of the absence of such distinction.

We, therefore, conclude that the Probate Court was correct in tracing descent through the ancestor common to descendants of all three husbands of the mother of the father of decedent.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Hamilton and Matthews, JJ., concur.