alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 34.1




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







The Management Committee


BMW Financial Services NA, LLC





We have examined BMW Financial Services NA, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange  Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2011-A (except for the servicing criteria described in the following paragraph), which the Company has determined as being applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset−backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2011 and for the period from September 21, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.





The Company has determined that the servicing criteria in Items 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x) (A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset−backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2011 and for the period from September 21, 2011 to December 31, 2011.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph of this report 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 servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph.





In our opinion, BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2011 and for the period from September 21, 2011 to December 31, 2011.







/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP
  Roseland, New Jersey
 March 27, 2012
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 of Cardium
Therapeutics, Inc. 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 that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Christopher J. Reinhard                     
|                      |  |  |  | Christopher J. Reinhard, Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 10, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Dennis M. Mulroy                            
|                      |  |  |  | Dennis M. Mulroy, Chief Financial Officer       

The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### MARGATE BRIDGE COMPANY v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF NORTHFIELD.

February 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
NEY 

### GENERAL. QFTEXAS

HonorableWilliam D. Pratt Opinion No. C-324 County Attorney Palo Pinto County Re: Whether the word "or" Mineral Wells, Texas contained in Section 32 of Article 

### 666, V.P.C., Is dlsDear Mr. Pratt: junctlveor-conjunctive.

In your request you ask whether the word 'or' contained in Section 32 of Article 

### 666, V.P.C., Is dlsjunctlve or conjunctive.

The pertinentpart of the Statute reads as follows: "No signature shallbe countedunless the residenceaddress of the signer is shown, or unless it Is signed exactly as the name of t= voter appears on the official copy of the currentpoll list or the official copy of the current list of exempt voters." (EmphasisSupplied) It is a familiar rule of statutoryconstruction that words used by the Legislaturein a statute are to.be given theirusual meaning, unless that meaning is shaded or changedby the manner in which they are used In the particular statute. 39 Tex.Jur. 194.

Black's Law Dictionary,Fourth Edition,defines "or": 'A disjunctiveparticleused to express an alternat‘ive

or to give a choice of one among two or more things
. . .' (BnphasisSupplied) Inits ordinaryuse, the term 'or" is disjunctive and alternativein Its effect. Unless there Is some impelling Geason apparent in the context, It shouldbe given Its ordinary rathez ___-_.

- _...v..---

-- ~~..-.~~~~~~

_~ Y than a cordunctlve meanlna. Oxsheer v. Watt, 91 Tex. 402, 44 S.W. 67 (1898). There atg;irs no lmoellinn' reason in the context for giving the word - ..--- anv other,thaE its usual meaning. Moreover, the p: resenceof theYword "unless" following 'or' In the statute iends weight to the disjunctiveposltion as opposed to the aonjunctlve.

-1545-HonorableWilliam D. Pratt, Page 2:,(&32!+) .~ ':
Webster'sDictionarydefines "unless"as meaning any case other than", "except that", "exaeDtwhen." "in This would further indicatethat the second re&lsite-phrase in the statute was intendedby the Legislatureas an alternative.
SUMMARY The word "or" in Section 32 of Article 

### 666, V.P.C., is used in the disjunctive', not the conjunctive. Respectfullysubmitted, WAQQONER CARR Attorney General of Texas

BSC/lh APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W., V. 'Qeppert,

Chairman Joe Long Jqnes Stroak Pat Bailey Jack Goodman By:

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEYQENBRAL BY: Roger Tyler

-1546-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) FOR COMMERCE NATIONAL CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARY DATED MARCH 31, 2000 AND DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       6,137,933
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,966,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,548,750
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      18,548,750
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        18,548,750
<LOANS>                                    141,042,430
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,647,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             181,481,943
<DEPOSITS>                                 158,650,610
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,579,034
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            760,878
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,141,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,457
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,275,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             181,481,943
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,090,326
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              260,059
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               119,134
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,469,519
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,667,632
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,667,632
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,801,887
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   44,691
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,408,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                582,954
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     582,954
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   366,582
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   0.043
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,742,162
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               782,309
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              4,852,165
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,629,823
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   27,104
<RECOVERIES>                                       220
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,647,630
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,647,630
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        722,028

</TABLE>
The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4276

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

Appeal from the United States

v. *

District Court for the

 *

Western District of Missouri.

Anthony W. Call, *

 * (UNPUBLISHED)

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 29, 1997

 Filed: June 2, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony W. Call was convicted of possessing with

intent to distribute crack and powder cocaine, see 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii), and (b)(1)(C) (1988),

and using a firearm during and in relation to a drugtrafficking offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1988).

The District Court sentenced Call to concurrent 190-month

1

terms on the drug counts and a consecutive 60-month term
-2-

on the firearm count. After the Supreme Court decided

Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501, 506 (1995)

(defining 
-3-

“use” under § 924(c)(1)), Call filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion attacking his firearm conviction. The government

conceded Call’s firearm conviction should be vacated in

light of Bailey, but argued the District Court should

enhance Call’s drug sentences under U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1987) for his possession

of a firearm. The District Court vacated Call’s firearm

conviction, assessed the firearm-possession enhancement,

and resentenced Call to concurrent 210-month terms on the

drug counts.

On appeal, Call argues that the District Court lacked

jurisdiction to resentence him on the unchallenged drug

convictions, and that application of the firearmpossession enhancement violates double jeopardy and due

process. We conclude, however, that Call’s arguments are

foreclosed by United States v. Harrison, No. 96-2544,

slip op. at 3-6 (8th Cir. May 9, 1997) (rejecting same

arguments).

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH

CIRCUIT.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Memo prepares DOD employees for government shutdown

              - Published  Sept. 24, 2013
              -                             By Jim Garamone                                                         ** 
              - American Forces Press Service

**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --  **
Although Defense Department officials believe a government shutdown can be avoided when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, they want DOD employees to be prepared for the possibility, Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a memo issued to the workforce Sept. 23. 

The fiscal year ends Sept. 30, and Congress has not passed a budget. If Congress does not approve a budget or pass a continuing resolution, the portions of the government funded via appropriated funds will be forced to close.

“The department remains hopeful that a government shutdown will be averted,” Carter wrote in the memo. “The administration strongly believes that a lapse in funding should not occur and is working with Congress to find a solution.”

Congress still can prevent a lapse in appropriations, but “prudent management requires that we be prepared for all contingencies, including the possibility that a lapse could occur at the end of the month,” the deputy secretary wrote.

The absence of funding would mean a number of government activities would cease. “While military personnel would continue in a normal duty status, a large number of our civilian employees would be temporarily furloughed,” Carter said. “To prepare for this possibility, we are updating our contingency plans for executing an orderly shutdown of activities that would be affected by a lapse in appropriations.”

President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel understand the hardships such a shutdown could cause civilian employees, the deputy secretary wrote.

“The administration strongly believes that a lapse in funding should not occur and is working with Congress to find a solution,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters today. “The secretary has made it clear that budget uncertainty is not helpful for us in executing our budget efficiently, and a shutdown would be the worst type of uncertainty. A shutdown would put severe hardships on an already stressed workforce, and is totally unnecessary.”

Carter vowed to provide more information as it becomes available. The Office of Personnel Management’s website has more information.

fiscal yeargovernment shutdown

#             Related Links        

-  Office of Personnel Management 
-  memo 
-  Chuck Hagel 
-  Ash Carter
#### Everett Lewis v. Wade, Wood & Foster.

(No. —, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 324.)

Appeal from Gonzales County.

March 27, 1878.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 697. *Parties who are liable as partners.*Where the acts and dealings of parties are such as to justify a third party in regarding them as partners, and such party contracts with them believing them to be partners, they cannot be heard to dispute the partnership when sued on such contract.

Reversed and rendered.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 16, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-00966-CV

MIG TECH SOLUTIONS LLC, MICROINFO INC., MICROINFO IT INC., 

MICROINFO TECH INC., ADGLOBAL 360 INC., 

ZODIAN SOLUTIONS INC., AND IMRAN MEMON, INDIVIDUAL, 

Appellants

V.

ORIGIN BANK, A FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 493rd District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 493-04371-2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Goldstein, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel

Before the Court is appellants’ September 10, 2024 motion to dismiss the 

appeal because the parties have settled their dispute. We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(1).

240966f.p05

/Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MIG TECH SOLUTIONS LLC, 

MICROINFO INC., MICROINFO IT 

INC., MICROINFO TECH INC., 

ADGLOBAL 360 INC., ZODIAN 

SOLUTIONS INC., AND IMRAN 

MEMON, INDIVIDUAL, Appellants

No. 05-24-00966-CV V.

ORIGIN BANK, A FOREIGN 

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 493rd District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 493-04371-

2024.

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and 

Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee 

ORIGIN BANK, A FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellants MIG TECH SOLUTIONS LLC, MICROINFO INC., 

MICROINFO IT INC., MICROINFO TECH INC., ADGLOBAL 360 INC., 

ZODIAN SOLUTIONS INC., AND IMRAN MEMON, INDIVIDUAL.

Judgment entered this 16th day of September, 2024.
Exhibit 31.1

The undersigned, in his capacity as the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Online
Consortium Corp rovides the following certifications required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and 17 C.F.R
240.13a-14.

Certification of Chief Executive and Financial Officer:

I, D. Grant Macdonald, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Online Consortium Corp,
certify that:

|1. I have reviewed this annual report on
    Form 10-KSB of Online Consortium Corp.;         2.
       Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; and
    3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
    financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
    for, the periods presented in this annual report.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Date: January 5, 2004

|/s/ D. Grant MacdonaldD. Grant Macdonald
    Chief Executive and Financial Officer
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### R. S. Lee et al. v. John B. Stone.

(No. 2319, Op. Book No. 2, p. 642.)

Appeal from Travis County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1277. *Appeal bond from justice's court; conditions of; when in substantial compliance tuith the statute, will be sufficient.*The statute prescribes the conditions of the appeal bond as follows: “ Conditioned that the appellant shall prosecute his appeal to effect, and shall pay off and satisfy the judgment which may be rendered against him on such appeal” [R. S. 1639], while the conditions of the bond in this case are as follows: “ Shall prosecute their *740appeal to effect, and shall pay and satisfy the judgment or decree that may be rendered against the obligors on this bond.” Upon an appeal to the county court the trial is rife *novo,*but if the judgment is in favor of the appellee, then the judgment ought to be against the appellant and the sureties on the appeal bond. The legal effect is that the judgment is against the obligors on the bond. There is no conceivable difference in the legal effect of the obligation, whether it be in the terms of the statute or the language of the bond before us. Either way the sureties are bound to pay the judgment that may be rendered against the appellant. The obligation of the surety ’is precisely the same. The appeal bond in this case was a substantial compliance with the statute, and was sufficient, and the court erred in holding otherwise and dismissing the appeal.

June 21, 1882.

§ 1278. *Statutory bonds; duty of party preparing a bond.*When the conditions of a statutory bond are dearly and definitely stated in the statute, if the bond does not literally follow the statute, it must fully and clearly embrace all the conditions prescribed by it. [Reid v. Fernandez, 53 Tex. 382.] Those desiring to secure the benefit of an appeal ought always to consult the statute, and in perfecting their appeal comply strictly with its provisions. By doing so the rights of the client are not jeopardized, and the courts will be freed from a mass of vexatious questions which ought not to be brought before them. All the requisites of the statute are so easily understood and complied with, that if parties would take the precaution to examine the statute and literally follow its terms, there could not be any doubt. Besides, it is just as easy to follow the language of the statute as it is to give its substance.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000774454
<NAME> U.S. MICROBICS 
EXHIBIT 27 - FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>            OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                    685,746
<SECURITIES>                 0        
<RECEIVABLES>             176,862       
<ALLOWANCES>                 0   
<INVENTORY>                21,390         
<CURRENT-ASSETS>          896,761
<PP&E>                    248,005           
<DEPRECIATION>              5,414 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>          1,158,062 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>     416,228
<BONDS>                      0         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0
<PREFERRED>                 7,668       
<COMMON>                      474     
<OTHER-SE>                725,099      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 1,158,062
<SALES>                   176,728               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>          176,728 
<CGS>                      17,895                 
<TOTAL-COSTS>             480,784       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>           (4,051)   
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           0     
<INCOME-PRETAX>           (267,900)       
<INCOME-TAX>                 0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>       (267,900)  
<DISCONTINUED>               0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0      
<CHANGES>                    0               
<NET-INCOME>              (267,900)            
<EPS-PRIMARY>               (.11)       
<EPS-DILUTED>               (.11)          
        

</TABLE>