alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                      26,178,214
<SECURITIES>                                22,039,036
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,857,110
<PP&E>                                      13,326,940
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,488,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,722,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,185,181
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       141,149
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,295,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,722,024
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,136,476)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,136,476)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,136,476)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



---

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, in connection with Rule , that based on 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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKYWilliam P. Hankowsky
Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 12, 2003
No. 37.

#### Otis Smith, administrator, &c. of Wilie Warmack, deceased, plaintiff in error *vs.*Thomas C. Burn, plaintiff in exeution, and Freeman McLendon, defendants in error.

From Troup Superior Court.

Motion to dismiss the case upon the following grounds, that is — First. There was no notice filed in the clerk’s office of the Court below, of the signing of the bill of exceptions.

Second. The testimony had on the trial below, was not embodied in the bill of exceptions.

Third. The bill of exceptions was not signed within four days after the adjournment of the Court below by the presiding Judge.

Dougherty, for plaintiff.

Bull, for defendant.

*263
      *By the Court*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

The motion must he sustained upon all of the grounds embraced in it, any one of which would be fatal to the writ.

The fourth section of the Act creating this Court, 1 *Kelly’s R.*vi, requires, “that when any bill of exceptions shall have been signed and certified by the Judge of the Superior Court, *that notice thereof*shall be given to the adverse party, or his counsel, within ten days after the same shall have been done, and *shall be filed*in the clerk’s office immediately thereafter.

By the same section of the same organic law, *Ibid,*it is provided, “ that any cause of a civil nature, either on the law or equity side of the Superior Court, may be carried up to the Supreme Court on a bill of exceptions, specifying the error or errors complained of in any decision or judgment, to be drawn up by the party complaining thereof, his counsel, solicitor, or attorney, *within four days after the trial of the cause,*and submitted to the Judge, to be by him certified and signed.

By the 4th Rule of this Court, *Ib. xi,*it is declared that “ a brief of the oral, and a copy of the written evidence adduced in the Court below, shall be embodied in the bill of exceptions, and shall constitute a part of the same.”

In this case no *notice*has been given of the signing of the bill of exceptions. It is apparent, from the record, that the bill of exceptions was presented to the presiding Judge, and signed and certified by him, on the *fifth*day after the trial of the cause. And no portion of the testimony of Jesse McLendon is incorporated in the bill of exceptions, notwithstanding the record shows that he was examined as a witness by the defendant in error in the Court *below;*and that one of the errors complained of on the trial at the Circuit, was the reception of said testimony.

The writ must be dismissed.
#### Veronica BOWMAN and Gregory Bowman v. The RIVERSIDE COURT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PHASE, II, INC., et al.

No. 2011-CC-1855.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re The Riverside Court Condominium Association Phase II, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 678-619; to the *951Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-C-662.

Granted and remanded to court of appeal for briefing, argument, and opinion.
#### STATE ex rel. Billy Ray ROBINSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0979.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re: Robinson, Billy Ray; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lasalle, 28th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 72,511; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01155.

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

 

Inconnection with the special financial report (the “Report”) pursuant to Rule 15d-2under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Atlantic Express TransportationCorp. (the “Company”), I, Domenic Gatto, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(i) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Domenic Gatto               |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |  Domenic Gatto             |
|   | * Chief Executive Officer* |

 

 

Date: November 16,2005

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Reportpursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.

 

----
#### STATE ex rel. Anthony HARVEY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0028.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Harvey, Anthony; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 05-166543; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1456.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS



The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certify that the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, which
accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is
subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 17, 2004 |  |                        
|                    | 
|                    |  | /s/ Ellis L. Gutshall  
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advocat Inc.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 August 8, 2007
    /s/ L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darryl ROBINSON.

No. 2012-KO-0088.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Robinson, Darryl; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 489-040; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0066.

Denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2014, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator and Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC21 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.                                                                                         (logo) Together we’ll go far
#### Gerald Kent HOOD v. CAJUN CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

No. 2010 CA 0845.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Feb. 11, 2011.

*596Marvin C. Gros, Donaldsonville, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Gerald Kent Hood.

Frank R. Whiteley, III, Metairie, Louisiana, for Defendant/Appellee, Cajun Constructors, Inc.

Before WHIPPLE, McDONALD, and McClendon jj.

McDonald, j.

|2On July 15, 2008, Gerald Kent Hood, a heavy-equipment operator, filed a disputed claim for compensation against his employer, Cajun Constructors, Inc. (Cajun Constructors). He asserted that he was working on April 10, 2001, putting in oil drill shafts, when he felt a light mist on his skin for about two and a half hours. His skin was itching and burning, and thereafter, he asserted, a supervisor sent him and other workers to the company doctor. Mr. Hood asserted that his sinuses, lungs and stomach were affected by the incident and that benefits were due to him.

On December 4, 2008, Cajun Constructors filed a peremptory exception of res judicata, asserting: that the claim arose from an accident that occurred on April 10, 2001; that the claim was settled by a joint motion signed by the workers’ compensation judge on November 15, 2004; and that the claim should be dismissed with prejudice. Cajun Constructors attached as exhibits the order approving the settlement and dismissing the case, the joint petition for settlement, Mr. Hood’s affidavit that he understood the consequences of the settlement and agreed to the settlement, an affidavit by counsel for Cajun. Constructors and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company that the allegations in the joint petition for settlement were true and correct, an affidavit by Mr. Hood’s attorney that Mr. Hood understood the settlement documents and consequences, and the joint motion and order to dismiss the case.

On February 13, 2009, Mr. Hood filed a motion to nullify the judgment dismissing the case, asserting that the judgment was obtained by fraud and ill practices committed by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company. Mr. Hood attached an affidavit to his motion, which asserted that he had three different accidents while working for Cajun Constructors and that he believed that during the settlement of a different lawsuit (a class action suit involving Vulcan Chemical)' St. |sPaul Mercury Insurance Company was reimbursed for medical bills which had been paid for by Mr. Hood’s personal health insurance, rather than by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company.

After a hearing, the workers’ compensation judge granted Cajun Constructor’s peremptory exception of res judicata and denied Mr. Hood’s motion to nullify the judgment. Mr. Hood is appealing that judgment.

After a thorough review of the record, we find that there was no evidence presented showing fraud or ill practices by St. Paul Mercy Insurance Company in this case. Thus, we find that the workers’ compensation judge was legally correct in granting the peremptory exception of res judicata and did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to nullify the judgment. Thus, the judgment is affirmed and costs are assessed against Mr. Hood.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 11.1 - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                      Advanced Communication Systems, Inc.
                         Pro forma Net Income per share

                 (in thousands, except share and per share data)

                                                      Year ended September 30,
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                       1997             1996
                                                   --------------  ------------


Weighted average Common Stock outstanding..........  4,305,801       3,732,750


Common stock equivalent............................     46,623          73,440

Stock options issued during the twelve  
months immediately preceeding the offering (using
the treasury stock method and the initial public 
offering price of $7.50 per share..................     38,131          75,833
                                                          

The assumed sale of a sufficient number of shares 
of Common Stock necessary to fund the distribution 
of all undistributed S corporation earnings in 
excess of the preceeding twelve months earnings....    376,917         479,333
                                                   --------------  ------------
Pro forma weighted average shares..................  4,767,472       4,361,356
                                                   ==============  ============

Pro forma net income...............................       $915          $1,162
                                                   ==============  ============

Pro forma net income per share.....................      $0.19           $0.27
                                                   ==============  ============
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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Industrial Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,, David
J. Wodar, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.

March 31, 2008                         /s/ David J. Wodar
                                       ------------------
                                       David J. Wodar
                                       President & CEO



<PAGE>
#### STATE ex rel. Byron JOSEPH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1260.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Joseph, Byron; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 03-2299; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-175.

Denied. Repetitive. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
EXHIBIT 10.2

Amendment to Split Dollar Insurance Agreement

This Amendment (Amendment) to Split Dollar Insurance Agreement is
dated as of the 31st day of January, 2008, by and between Valley Bank, a Virginia banking corporation (Valley Bank) and A. Wayne Lewis (Employee);

Whereas, on August 20, 2003, Valley Bank and Employee entered into a Split Dollar Insurance Agreement (Agreement);

Whereas, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment;

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual promises of the parties set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Section 7 of the Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

At the death of the Employee, the proceeds of the Policy (death proceeds) shall be paid in the following order: (a) to Employees
designated beneficiary or beneficiaries an amount equal to three times the Employees base salary during the last full year of Employees employment with Valley Bank (Employee Proceeds), and (b) the excess of the death
proceeds after payment of the Employee Proceeds (the Valley Bank Proceeds) to Valley Bank. In the event the total death proceeds are insufficient to pay the Employee Proceeds, Valley Bank shall not be obligated to make up and pay the
difference to Employees designated beneficiary or beneficiaries and the payment of the total death proceeds as provided herein shall constitute full and complete satisfaction of Valley Banks obligations hereunder. Valley Bank agrees to
direct the Insurer with respect to the payment of the death proceeds in accordance with this Agreement.

2. The parties ratify and confirm
the Agreement except as modified hereby.

3. This Amendment contains the entire, final and exclusive agreement of the parties with respect
to the matters set forth herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date first written above.



Valley Bank/s/ Kimberly B. SnyderKimberly B. SnyderExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerEmployee/s/ A. Wayne LewisA. Wayne Lewis