alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Cresud S.A.C.I.F. y A (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Alejandro G. Elsztain, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the company.





Cresud S.A.C.I.F y A.October 31, 2014
By:
/s/ Alejandro G. ElsztainAlejandro G. ElsztainChief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie ROY.

No. 2010-K-1297.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Roy, Ronnie; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 147-684; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1410.

Denied.
#### Christopher MORELAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alan J. LAZAROFF, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-4357.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2001.

Before MERRITT, BOGGS, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

This case is before the court upon remand by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its decision in *Artuz v. Bennett,*531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000). In *Artuz,*the Court determined that, where a state application for postconviction or other collateral review meets applicable rules and laws governing such filings, the application is “properly filed” and thus tolls the statute of repose applicable to habeas corpus petitions regardless of whether the claims contained therein are precluded by procedural bar. *Artuz,*121 S.Ct. at 363-64.

Upon consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s determination, we must vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing Moreland’s habeas petition as barred *488by the statute of repose because More-land’s second state postconviction action tolled the limitations period. Therefore, consideration of the merits of Moreland’s federal habeas petition is not barred.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is vacated pursuant to Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, and the case is remanded to the district court for further consideration.
#### Carlos RICHBURG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D12-3868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 18, 2012.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 2012.

Carlos Richburg, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

HAMEED CAHOON, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 75 WM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
#### STATE ex rel. David SANTOS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1121.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Santos, David; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 466-002; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-480.

Denied.
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

BA RRY DWAYNE MI

NNF EE, Appellant,

v.
WARDEN I I DAVI D SWEETI N, I NDI VI DUAL

CAPACI TY, ASSI STANT WARDEN RI CHARD GUNNE L S, and WI L L I AM C. HAMAN, Appellee s. § § § § § § No. 08-11-00100- CV

Appea l from
112th District Court
of Crocke tt Count y , Texas

MEMORAN DUM OP INION
This case is befor e the Court on our own motion to deter mine whether it should be dismiss ed
for lac k of jurisdiction. Be cause there is no appea lable orde r, we will dism iss. Appellant, who is imprisoned, attempted to file a pleading in the district court. Although the

nature of the pleading is not entirely clea r, it appea rs that Appellant alleg ed that prison officia ls had
committed intentional torts ag ainst him. The district court cler k responde d by letter, stating that she diligently sear ched her rec ords, but was “unable to locate any previous criminal filings in this county

on y ou.” The cler

k advised Appellant to file his “ petition” in the county wher e he was sentenc ed.
There is no indication that the cler k filed Appellant’s pleading

. Appellant filed a notice of appea l.
The Cl er k o f t h is Court notified Appellant that there does not appea r to be an appea lable
order , and that the Court there fore intended to dismiss this appea l for lack of jurisdiction unless any party could show g rounds for continuing the appea l. Although Appellant responde d to the Clerk’snotice, the r esponse is incompre hensible.

This Court has appellate jurisdiction over final judgme nts and cer tain interlocutory order s.
Cantu Servs., Inc. v. United Freedom Assocs., Inc. , 329 S.W .3d 58, 62 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2010, no pet.). I n this case , there is no order from which Appellant may appea l. See Moody v. Spivey , No.
06-10-00066- CV, 2010 WL 3450351, at *1 (T ex
. App.--T exarkana Sept. 3, 2010, no pet.)(me m. op.)(dismissing appea l beca use no order had been enter ed by the trial court). Acc ording ly , the appea l
is dismi ssed for la ck of jurisdiction. 1

May 11, 2011 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice
Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.

W h e n a d i s t r i c t c l e r k r e f u s e s t o f i l e a p l e a d i n g , t h e p r o p e r r e m e d y i s a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s f r o m t h e d i s t r i c t 1

c o u r t

. I n r e B e r n a r d , 9 9 3 S

. W

. 2 d 4 5 3 , 4 5 4 ( T e x
. A p p
. - - H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 1 9 9 9 , o r i g
. p r o c e e d i n g ) ( O ’ C o n n o r , J

. , c o n c u r r i n g )

.
EXHIBIT 13.2








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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Cresud
S.A.C.I.F. y A. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Matias
Gaivironsky, as Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, 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, except as
disclosed in “Item 15. Controls and Procedures
̶  A. Disclosure Controls and Procedures” of
the Report; and





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














Cresud S.A.C.I.F y A.October
31, 2016
By:
/s/
Matias GaivironskyMatias
GaivironskyChief
Financial and Administrative Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Deloitte &
 Touche LLP
       (logo)          Suite 2100                      Telephone: (502) 562-2000
                       220 West Main Street            Facsimile: (502) 562-2073
                       Louisville, Kentucky 40202-5313



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Stockholder of
 Great Financial Bank, FSB
Louisville, Kentucky

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about Great  Financial  Bank,  FSB's
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE
BANKERS  (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December 31, 1996  included in the
accompanying  management  assertion report on compliance with minimum  servicing
standards.  Management is responsible for Great Financial Bank, FSB's compliance
with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to express an
opinion  on  management's  assertion  about the Bank's  compliance  based on our
examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  Great  Financial  Bank,  FSB's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our
examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not provide a legal  determination  on Great Financial Bank,  FSB's ' compliance
with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion that Great Financial Bank, FSB complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1996 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 10, 1997



DELOITTE TOUCHE
TOHMATSU
INTERNATIONAL
Exhibit 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 State of
        Name                                   Incorporation                  Assumed Names
------------------------------------       ----------------------       ----------------------------
<S>                                           <C>                       <C>
Prestolock International, Ltd.                   Michigan
Monroe Engineering Products, Inc.                Michigan
Cass River Coatings, Inc.                        Michigan               Vassar Industries
Noble Metal Products, Inc.*                      Michigan
Skandy Corp.                                     Michigan
Utilase Production Process, Inc.                 Michigan
Utilase, Inc.                                    Michigan               Blank Welding Technologies
Utilase Canada, Inc.                          Ontario, Canada
Noble Land Holdings, Inc.                        Michigan
Noble Metal Technologies, Inc.                   Michigan
Noble Components & Systems, Inc.                 Michigan
</TABLE>

----------------
 *Formerly DCT Component Systems, Inc.
##### 



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*

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winston Hotels, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W.
Winston, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.

|             |  |                                                             
|------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|             |  | /s/ Robert W. Winston III                                   
|             |  |                                                             
|Name:
Title: |  | Robert W. Winston, III
President and Chief Executive Officer
|             |  |                                                             
|Date:        |  | May 8, 2003                                                 



|* |  | Furnished in accordance with the Commissions guidance published in SEC Rel.
No. 34-47551. This exhibit shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any document or filed herewith for purposes of liability under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28
Exhibit 32.2



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-KSB of Sontra Medical Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean F. Moran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Sean F. Moran      
|Sean F. Moran          
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 16, 2004
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of RC2 Corporation
      (the "Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that
      Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.











Dated:
      February 28, 2007  /s/
      Curtis W.
      Stoelting


Curtis
      W.
      Stoelting


Chief
      Executive Officer











Dated:
      February 28, 2007  /s/
      Jody L.
      Taylor


Jody
      L.
      Taylor


Chief
      Financial Officer








This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
#### STATE ex rel. Allen BERRY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1772.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Berry, Allen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 478-340; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0874.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         350,042
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                   126,976
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               406,677
<PP&E>                                         166,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                  95,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,128,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          345,856
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,422,282
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,668,189)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,128,596
<SALES>                                         90,227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,315
<CGS>                                           51,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,192,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,155,053)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (532,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (623,053)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (623,053)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Shawna FARLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0619.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Farley, Shawna; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 99-3320, 99-5050; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-859.

Denied.
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

San Antonio, Texas 

No. 04-15-00021-CV 

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, 

Appellant 

v.

Michael and Theresa HAYES, 

Appellees 

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2014CV00284 

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding 

APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant, Board of Adjustment of the City of San Antonio, responds to the Court’s

Order dated February 26, 2015, as follows:

1. Appellant filed its notice of appeal on January 15, 2015.

2. On January 16, 2015, Appellant requested the clerk’s record and agreed to pay the

clerk’s fee. See attached letter.

3. Before filing the Notification of Late Record, the Clerk never advised Appellant that

the record had been completed and did not request payment of the clerk’s fee. Thus,

it is incorrect that an extension of time to file the clerk’s records was needed because

appellant failed to either make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee or pay the fee.

4. On March 4, 2015, the Appellant contacted Clerk Daniel Cedar, Lead Operations

Clerk, and he advised that he was recently given the task to prepare the clerk’s

record, that the record had not been completed, and that it would not be ready until

ACCEPTED

04-15-00021-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

3/6/2015 6:57:12 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 03/6/2015 6:57:12 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
March 10, 2015. That was the true reason he requested an extension of time. 

5. It was not until March 5, 2015, that the clerk determined the correct amount of the

clerk’s fee for the preparation of the record, which was immediately paid. See

attached receipt.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT LÓPEZ 

14310 Northbrook Dr., Suite 200

San Antonio, Texas 78232

Telephone: (210) 404-1983

Fax: (210) 404-1990

By: /s/ Albert López 

 ALBERT LÓPEZ 

 State Bar No. 12562350

 alopezoffice@gmail.com

 ATTORNEYS FOR THE BOARD OF

 ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument served

pursuant to the rules upon David L. Earl, 745 East Mulberry, Mailbox 16, San Antonio,

Texas 78212 on March 6, 2015.

/s/ Albert López

Albert López
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William E. Meyer, Chief Financial Officer of BroadVision, Inc.,certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A ofBroadVision, Inc.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               [intentionallyomitted]

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             [intentionallyomitted]

 

c)              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d)             Disclosed  in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: February 4, 2005 |                             |
|------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                   | /s/   WILLIAM E. MEYER |   |
|                   | William E. Meyer                 |
| * *               | *Chief Financial Officer*        |

 

----