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

Saitta 

The findings and recommendations of a disciplinary hearing 

panel, though persuasive, are not binding on this court. In re Discipline of 

Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). The automatic review 

of a panel decision recommending a suspension is conducted de novo, 

requiring the exercise of independent judgment by this court. Id.; see SCR 

105(3)(b). 

Based on our review of the record, the suspension 

recommendation is insufficient in relation to Sipan's admitted conduct. 

Accordingly, we reject the conditional guilty plea agreement and remand 

this matter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for further 

proceedings. 

It is so ORDERED. 

, C.J. 

Hardesty 

4:29tial"' Parraguirre 

tr) 

k41, 

Gibbons 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A er. 
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

Richard C. Sipan 

Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e
News United States Air Force
 SecAF visits JB Langley-EustisPublished July 21, 2020
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Sarah Dowe
                        
                        
                        633rd Air Base Wing Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va. (AFNS) --**
                Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett learned firsthand how Joint Base Langley-Eustis stays mission-ready through the capabilities of Airmen and their assets during a visit to the installation July 16-17.



During the tour, Barrett saw what efforts are being made to modernize the Air Force, boost morale and continue to encourage diversity and inclusion within the Air Force family.



“Air and space superiority requires continuous technological advancement,” Barrett said. “To protect American interests at home and abroad, the Total Force team at Joint Base Langley-Eustis is committed to fortifying its capabilities and maintaining a technological edge over adversaries.”



During her visit, Barrett was able to familiarize herself with the characteristics and capabilities of theF-22 Raptor by observing a flight simulator and touring the 1st Fighter Wing. She also visited the 363rd and 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wings to learn about their capabilities.



"From the pioneering F-22s on the ramp to persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance resources, Airmen deliver for joint-force partners around the globe," Barrett said.



While in the units, Barrett greeted and coined Airmen who were nominated by their leadership for outstanding performance. She also met with joint officers, civilians and enlisted to hear their thoughts on diversity and inclusion efforts.



Gen. Mike Holmes, commander of **Air Combat Command**, and Col. Clinton Ross, JB Langley-Eustis installation commander, were among other leaders and Airmen to welcome Barrett during her first visit.



“We are honored to host the Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett and to be able to showcase some of the great capabilities we have here at JB Langley-Eustis,” Ross said. “Our team is committed to moving the mission forward as we continue to advance our capabilities and remain vigilant in defense of this great nation.”AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



ACC 



Air Combat Command 



SecAF 



Secretary of the Air Force 



Barbara M. Barrett 



JBLE 



JB Langley-Eustis 



F-22 



Raptor 



total force 



modernize 



diversity 



inclusion
<PAGE>

                                                                         Page 13


                                                                    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 Brunswick Bancorp and subsidiaries
(the "company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
Carmen Gumina, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the company.


Date: 04/25/06                          Carmen J. Gumina
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Carmen J. Gumina
                                        Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                        Executive Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 18, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 18, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0098. ERNST-COBB, CO., INC. et al. v. DANIEL ZURITA et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 18A129
#### Laimbeer *v.*Allen and Whittlesey.

The party verifying a pleading under the code, must subscribe his name to such pleading or to the affidavit appended.

An answer, regular in all respects except in the omission of the signature of the party to its verification, should not be disregarded, until notice is given of the defect and an opportunity afforded to correct it.

June 18, 1849.

Motion to set aside a default and judgment. The defendant in time, served an answer, signed by their attorneys, and certified by a commissioner to have been verified before him by both defendants. Neither of toem, however, appeared to have signed the answer or the affidavit which the commissioner certified. The plaintiff’s attorney, treating the answer as a nullity, and without communicating with the attorneys for the defendants, entered a default and perfected judgment against the latter.

*T. C. T. Buckley,*for the motion,

cited 3 J. R. 540; 25 Wen. 699; 3 Hill, 476.

*J. J Radcliffe, for*the plaintiff,

cited Amended Code, § 157 ; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 155, 603, 604; 1 Code Reporter, 63, 114; 2 Moulton’s Ch. Pr. 27 to 29.

By the Court. Sandford, J.

The answer was unquestionably defective, in the omission of the signatures of the parties verifying it. The practice has long been settled and uniform, that an affidavit should be signed by the deponent. A deposition, taken down by the officer, stands upon a different ground. *(Clark*v. *Sawyer,*3 Sand. Ch. R. 352,414.) But the plaintiff’s attorney, instead of entering a default, should -have notified the opposing attorneys of the defect, and if they did not promptly obviate it, he might then have treated it as a nullity, and proceeded to enter his judgment. We find this practice was established several years since, in the supreme court, and it is so fair and reasonable that we adopt it without hesitation.

Motion granted.
EXHIBIT 31.3





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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John P. Van Vlack, 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/ John P. Van VlackJohn P. Van Vlack,Chief Executive Officer
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  John Ask / Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6 th Floor        | 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102 |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Newark, DE  19711 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets, LLC |
| Attn:  John Ask                       | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 12 th Floor, MC 482-B12-C24 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2011-2 (the “Issuer”) |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of May 5, 2011 through December 31, 2011, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |
News United States Air Force
 Air Force announces cancellation of 20OT03 OTS selection boardPublished Aug. 13, 2020
                        
                        By Air Force Recruiting Service Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The upcoming 20OT03 Officer Training School selection board scheduled for September 14-18 has been canceled.
The board, which focused on the following career fields: 13S - Space Operations; 15W - Weather, 32EXA - Architect/Architectural Engineer; 32EXC - Civil Engineer; 32EXE - Electrical Engineer; 32EXG - General Engineer and 62EXE - Electrical/Electronic Engineer. Currently, a specialty board for these Air Force Specialty Codes has not been rescheduled at this time, but those interested in are encouraged to continue to look for future boards.
“The 20OT03 Board was canceled due to recent changes in the Total Force Accessions Program Guidance Letter,” said Senior Master Sgt. Aaron Akridge, AFRS officer accessions superintendent. “The updated guidance letter reduced and/or eliminated the need for 5 of the 7 AFSCs that were identified for this board. The only AFSC’s that weren’t affected are 62EXE (Developmental Engineer) and 13S (Space Operations). For the 62EXE, we have implemented a monthly critical accession degree board and are encouraging candidates to apply to the CAD board upon completion of the application.”
The deadline for applications to the Space Force’s 13S career in the 21USSF01 Board is Sept. 25. All other applicants are encouraged to apply to either of the Rated or Non-Rated Boards throughout fiscal year 2021.
For more information concerning OTS and the application process, active-duty members should visit the Air Force Recruiting Service OTS page on the Air Force Portal and civilians should contact the nearest Air Force Officer Accessions recruiter. A recruiter locator is available on **www.airforce.com/find-a-recruiter**.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Officer Training School 



OTS 



selection board 



13S 



space operations 



15W 



weather 



32EXA 



Architect/Architectural Engineer 



32EXC 



Civil Engineer; 32EXE 



electrical engineer 



32EXG 



General Engineer 



62EXE 



Electrical/Electronic Engineer 



20OT03 



Total Force Accessions Program Guidance Letter 



rated boards 



Non-Rated Boards
Order entered October 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01144-CR

ERNEST EDWARD GAINES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F05-56570-S

ORDER

This appeal is from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction 

DNA testing pursuant to chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The order was 

signed on August 12, 2015 and appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 1, 2015. 

Counsel has been appointed. We note that the record due date has been set based on appellant’s 

filing of a motion for new trial. Because there is no sentence imposed in a post-conviction DNA 

case, a motion for new trial is not effective to extend the time to file a notice of appeal and does 

not impact the record due date. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4(a); Welsh v. State, 108 S.W.3d 921, 

922–23 (Tex. App.––Dallas 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to 

show that the record is due in this appeal sixty days from August 12, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P.

35.2(a).
We have received correspondence from Patricia Holt, official court reporter of the 282nd 

Judicial District Court stating that she has determined the record was filed in this case in 2006. 

Because this is a new appeal from an order denying post-conviction DNA testing, the record 

filed in 2006 was the record of the trial from the underlying conviction. Accordingly, we 

DIRECT the Clerk to transfer the record from the appeal in cause no. 05-06-00599-CR, styled 

Ernest Edward Gaines v. The State of Texas, into the above appeal, and to file a copy of this 

order among the papers of cause no. 05-06-00599-CR.

We ORDER Ms. Holt to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, either the 

reporter’s record of the hearing on the motion for post-conviction DNA testing or written 

confirmation that no hearing was conducted or recorded.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, the clerk’s record containing all of the documents related to appellant’s motion 

for post-conviction DNA testing.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Patricia Holt, official court 

reporter, 282nd Judicial District Court; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; and to counsel 

for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

H. F. AHMANSON & COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
EXHIBIT 11


     Common stock equivalents identified by the Company in determining its 
basic income per common share are stock options and stock appreciation rights. 
In addition, common stock equivalents used in the determination of diluted 
income per common share include the effect, when such effect is not anti-
dilutive, of the 6% Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, Series D which is 
convertible into 11.7 million shares of Common Stock at $24.335 per share of 
Common Stock.  The following is a summary of the calculation of income per 
common share (dollars in thousands, except per share data):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      For the Three Months Ended
                                                               March 31,        
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                        1998             1997   
                                                     -----------     -----------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>
Net income:
  Net income                                         $   114,303     $   103,093
  Less accumulated dividends on preferred stock           (6,986)         (8,408)
                                                     -----------     -----------
  Basic net income attributable to common shares         107,317          94,685
  Add accumulated dividends paid on convertible 
    preferred stock, Series D                              4,256           4,313
                                                     -----------     -----------
  Diluted net income attributable to common shares   $   111,573     $    98,998
                                                     ===========     ===========
Weighted average shares:
  Basic weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding                               101,512,046     100,605,693
  Dilutive effect of outstanding common stock
    equivalents                                       13,503,936      13,517,483
                                                     -----------     -----------
  Diluted weighted average number of common 
    shares outstanding                               115,015,982     114,123,176
                                                     ===========     ===========
Per share:
  Basic income per common share                      $      1.06     $      0.94
                                                     ===========     ===========
  Diluted income per common share                    $      0.97     $      0.87
                                                     ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00352-CR 

 

EX PARTE LACHARLES CURTIS 

On Appeal from the 364th District Court 

 Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2020-419,516, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding 

December 19, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, LaCharles Curtis, proceeding pro se, filed a document with this Court 

seeking to appeal the trial court’s purported denial of his pretrial application for writ of 

habeas corpus. Because no such order has been issued by the trial court, we dismiss 

the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction to consider a criminal appeal from a judgment of conviction

or where expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008). By letter of November 18, 2022, we notified Appellant that no judgment 

or appealable order had been entered by the trial court and directed him to show how we 
2

have jurisdiction over this appeal. In response, Appellant filed a “Motion to Remand 

Jurisdiction Because of Delay for Answer on Bond Reduction,” requesting that we remand 

the cause for the trial court to rule on his pending habeas application. Appellant has not 

demonstrated our appellate authority to do so. Further, to the extent Appellant now seeks 

mandamus relief, he has not filed a petition complying with Rule of Appellate Procedure 

52, supported by record documents, that shows he is entitled to the requested relief. 

Accordingly, we deny the motion.

Because Appellant has not presented this Court with a judgment of conviction or 

appealable order for review, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 filing by CDEX, Inc. (the "Company") of its Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 (the "Report") I,
Stephen A. McCommon, 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:

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

          (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the
Chief Financial Officer of CDEX, Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to CDEX, Inc. and will be retained by CDEX, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Stephen A. McCommon
-----------------------
Stephen A. McCommon
Chief Financial Officer


Date: February 12, 2009
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 annual report on Form 10-K of CEVA, Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Chester J. Silvestri, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Christine
Russell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, that, to the best of his or her 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.



This certification will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



Date: March 12, 2004



/s/ CHESTER J. SILVESTRIChester J. SilvestriChief Executive Officer/s/ CHRISTINE RUSSELLChristine RussellChief Financial Officer