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

|                   | Deloitte LLP     
|------------------ | -----------------
|5140 Yonge Street 
|Suite 1700        
|Toronto ON M2N 6L7
|                   | Canada           
|                   |                  
|                   | Tel: 416-601-6150
|                   | Fax: 416-601-6151
|                   | www.deloitte.ca  





Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm



We consent to the use of our report dated December 30, 2013
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Merus Labs International
Inc. (the Company) as at September 30, 2013 and for each of the years in the
two-year period ended September 30, 2013 and a summary of significant accounting
policies and other explanatory information, incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2014.

Chartered Professional Accountants, Chartered Accountants
Licensed Public Accountants Toronto, Canada December 22, 2014

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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


         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 29, 2002 (the "Form 10-K") of
LDM Technologies, Inc. (the "Issuer).

         I, Alan C. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify
that:

         (i)      The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
         (ii)     The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Issuer.

Dated:  December 6, 2002

                                                /s/ Alan C. Johnson
                                                -------------------
                                                Alan C. Johnson
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                LDM Technologies, Inc.
#### John A. Jackson v. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co.

(No. 808, Op. Book No. 2, p. 261.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Clark, J.

§ 7 50. *Consideration; failure of, may be pleaded against a negotiable note in hands of third party, when, etc.*Failure of consideration may be pleaded against a negotiable note, even when the note is in the hands of a third party for value, if the same was assigned after maturity.

§ 751. *JVote given for premium due on policy of insurance; plea of failure of consideration of, held insufficient.*It is made to appear that the premium on appellant’s policy became due and payable on April 1, 1875, and as a favor to him the note sued upon in this case was executed and delivered by him in lieu of cash. The fact that the payee of the note ceased to transact business as a life insurance company in December, 1875, before the note became due, and transferred its assets to appellee, cannot affect a recovery in the absence of allegation and proof that with such cessation of business appellant was deprived of the benefit of insurance upon his life for the unexpired portion of his policy. This was not shown, but on the contrary it does appear that appellee, by virtue of its transaction with the original payee, the Texas Mutual Life Insurance Company, succeeded to certain rights *413of the latter, and assumed its liabilities. It is not pretended that appellee is insolvent and unable to make good its liabilities.

March 20, 1880.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATIONS

In
connection with this Amendment No. 2 on Form 20-F/A to the annual report on Form 20-F of China Mobile Games and Entertainment Group Limited (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ken Fei Fu Chang, 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 2, 2015



By:

/s/ Ken Fei Fu ChangName:

Ken Fei Fu ChangTitle:

Director and Chief Financial Officer
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-60349

KATHY DOOLEY, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce A. Dooley, and as Next Friend of

Issac Dooley and Dawn Dooley,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

INTERNATIONAL SAFETY INSTRUMENTS, INC.

Defendant-Appellee,

and

TEAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; ABC CORPORATION, BRAND SCAFFOLD SERVICES, INC.; SCAFFOLDING RENTAL AND ERECTION SERVICES, INC.,

also known as Brand Scaffold Services, Inc.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:93-CV-562-GR)

April 8, 1996 Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Bruce Dooley was killed while performing his work at Chevron’s

Biloxi, Missi ssippi refinery and his widow and children brought

this action claiming defective design against the manufacturer of2

the safety breathing equipment he was using. The district court

granted summary judgment for defendant and plaintiffs appeal. We

affirm.

Plaintiffs contend the district court erred by w eighing the

credibility of plaintiff’s expert witness and in granting summary

judgment for defendant. We have carefully considered the parties’

briefs, their oral argument, and have studied the record; in

particular, the district court’s reasons for its ruling. We are

convinced that the district court did not weigh the credibility of

p laintiff’s expert nor did the district court rule that evide nce

inadmissible. Careful reading of the district court’s

pronouncements shows that, consi dering the expert evidence, the

district court found that plaintiffs have not shown an issue of

material fact as to defect in the design of the safety equipment or

any causal connection between its design and the tragic death of

Mr. Dooley. We see no error in this ruling.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              CONGRESS ACTS TO OVERHAUL FOREIGN AID POLICY

  (Mr. JONES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, this week, Congress has the opportunity to 
vote on legislation which would put American interests first. The 
American Overseas Interests Act overhauls our Nation's foreign aid 
policy to reflect our foreign policy and national security interests in 
the 1990's, not the 1950's. It defends our national security and 
supports our trade and economic interests while balancing the budget 
for our children's future.
  We draw a line between offering a helping hand to countries which 
support us and countries who choose to work against our interests. We 
send a bold statement to our enemies by cutting off funds to countries 
that spy on us, provide weapons to terrorist states and consistently 
vote against us in the United Nations.
  Most importantly, it eliminates three foreign policy agencies and 
cuts foreign aid spending by nearly $1 billion. Finally, it sends a 
message to neighbors around the world that we know ``we cannot buy 
friendship.''

                          ____________________
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

# ACTION:

Correction to 30-day notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-777, Application for Replacement of Northern Mariana Card; OMB Control No. 1615-0042.

* * * * *

                    On August 26, 2010, USCIS published a 30-day notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 75 FR 52540. The 30-day notice contained a spelling error in the title of Form I-777 throughout the document. This notice advises the public that the title of the Form I-777 should read “Application for Replacement of Northern Mariana Card”, instead of “Application for Replacement of Northern                     *Marina*                     Card”.                 

                    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in the 30-day notice published on August 26, 2010, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Products Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20529-2210. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at                     *rfs.regs@dhs.gov,*                     and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-5806 or via e-mail at                     *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.*

When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615-0042 in the subject box. 

                    If you need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the Web site at:                     *http://www.regulations.gov.*

We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Products Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529-2210; Telephone 202-272-8377. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Sunday Aigbe, 

Chief, Regulatory Products Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 2010-23344 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5355-H5356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time for the purpose of 
inquiring of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for next 
week.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will meet in pro forma session on Monday, May 
22. There will be no recorded votes.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 
o'clock noon for legislative business to consider three bills under 
open rules previously adopted by the House. The bills are: H.R. 614, 
the New London Fish Hatchery Conveyance; H.R. 584, 
[[Page H5356]] the Fairport National Fish Hatchery Conveyance; and 
H.R., 535, the Corning National Fish Hatchery Conveyance.
  We then plan to take up the rule and begin consideration of H.R. 
1561, the American Overseas Interest Act.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. to continue 
consideration of H.R. 1561. We intend to finish H.R. 1561 on Thursday 
afternoon, and it is our hope to have Members on their way home to 
their families and their districts for the Memorial Day district work 
period by 3 p.m., Thursday.
  The House will not be in session on Friday.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I would say to the gentleman I know of his interest in 
fish hatcheries and trying to improve fishing conditions all over the 
country. So I know of the importance of this legislation to the 
gentleman and to other people who are so interested around the country.
  I would like to ask when the first vote would be expected on Tuesday, 
approximately what time?
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman. We are instructing people to be 
prepared for a vote as early as 12 o'clock on Tuesday next.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I would like to ask the gentleman if he could advise us 
when the last vote might be expected on Tuesday.
  Mr. ARMEY. Tuesday evening we expect the last vote to be between 6 
and 6:30.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. Could you also advise us what 
rule he would expect on the American Overseas Interest Act?
  Mr. ARMEY. The Committee on Rules will meet on Monday. We anticipate 
a time-structured rule, but one that is as open as possible for the 
benefit of our Members.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. And, finally, I would ask the majority leader, when we 
return from the Memorial Day recess, will we return for votes on 
Monday, June 5, or do you think it will be on Tuesday, June 6?
  Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman's interest. We have not yet 
resolved that, and the gentleman is correct to make the inquiry. We 
will try to get that resolved and announce it next week.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 U.S. Microbics, Inc., (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert C. Brehm,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                             /s/ Robert C. Brehm
                                             ---------------------------
                                                 Robert C. Brehm
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

                                                 May 26, 2004
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 12.1
                     CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Twenty-Eight Weeks Ended
                                                     -------------------------------------
                                                     August 13, 2001       August 14, 2000
                                                     ---------------       ---------------
<S>                                                  <C>                   <C>
Earnings before fixed charges:
    Loss before income taxes
                                                         $(72,048)            $(26,718)
Fixed charges                                              48,752               54,116
                                                         --------             --------
                                                         $(23,296)            $ 27,398
                                                         ========             ========

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                     $ 35,031             $ 37,245
    Interest component of rent expense (1)                 13,721               16,871
                                                         --------             --------

                                                         $ 48,752             $ 54,116
                                                         ========             ========

Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges            $ 72,048             $ 26,718
                                                         ========             ========
</TABLE>

----------
(1) Calculated as one-third of total rent expense
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2364

JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PARKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER T. ELLIOT; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER D. SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER E. GASTON; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER S. PIERSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER NOVACK; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHELSEA BRUNSON, Estate/Deceased; SERGEANT 

S. WHITEHEAD; REGISTERED NURSE P. JOHNSON; REGISTERED NURSE 

GAINEY; REGISTERED NURSE JANE DOE; NURSE PRACTITIONER RALPH 

ALBASEAU; DOCTOR N. KOLONGO; CAPTAIN T. D. HATCHETT; CAPTAIN E. 

TAYLOR; SERGEANT L. NICHOLS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER K. EDMMONDS,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:10-cv-00134-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence 

Dumville, NORRIS, ST. CLAIR & LOTKIN, Virginia Beach, Virginia,

Kenneth Abrams, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

John M. Dickson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

complaint and his subsequent motions for extension of time to 

file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b). Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry 

of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an 

appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order denying relief on Dickson’s 

§ 1983 complaint was entered on November 2, 2010. Dickson filed 

his notice of appeal on December 6, 2010. Because Dickson 

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this 

portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

With respect to the district court’s order denying 

Dickson’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of 

appeal and his motion for reconsideration, Dickson’s notices of 

appeal were timely filed. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 
4

stated by the district court. Dickson v. Parker, No. 2:10—cv00134-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 1, 2011 & entered Feb. 2, 

2011). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit 34.6



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate
Services, Inc. (the Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for commercial
mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2012 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v),
1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with 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 applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the
Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report. 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.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2012 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 6, 2013

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T:
(214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us