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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes
of 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:



|(i) | the enclosed Annual Report of NSTAR on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NSTAR.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------
|Dated: February 9, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    JAMES J.
JUDGE           
|                        |  |  |  | James J. Judge                  
|                        |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Treasurer
|                        |  |  |  | and Chief Financial Officer
A93A0649.

#### DAVIS v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION.

(433 SE2d 143)

Johnson, Judge.

This is a direct appeal from the trial court’s grant of the Resolu *885tion Trust Corporation’s motion to compel Yvette Davis a/k/a Yvette Hall to vacate property.1 We have reviewed Davis’ three enumerations of error and find them to be totally without merit. The only genuine issue before this court is a motion for sanctions for frivolous appeal filed by the RTC. Because Davis’ appeal has no arguable merit, we grant the motion and direct the trial court to impose upon Davis a penalty of $500 upon receipt of the remittitur in accordance with Court of Appeals Rule 26 (b). See *Horton v. Middle Ga. Bank,*203 Ga. App. 127 (417 SE2d 220) (1992).

Decided May 26, 1993 —

Reconsideration denied June 9, 1993

Yvette Davis, *pro se.*

*McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb & Nichols, Linda S. Finley, Carol V. Clark,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed with direction.*

*Blackburn and Smith, JJ., concur.*

1

 Davis was directed to permanently vacate the property in an order dated April 11, 1989, granting summary judgment in a quiet title action she initiated after the property had been foreclosed. Davis appealed that decision to the Georgia Supreme Court which affirmed the trial court without opinion (Case No. S90A0502). *Davis v. Perpetual Sav. & Loan,*391 SE2d 121 (1990), aff'd without opinion. On October 8, 1990, eighteen months after the entry of the original order, Davis remained on the property. Perpetual’s successor, Statesman Federal Savings Bank filed an application for contempt, which resulted in another order requiring Davis to vacate. Since that time, two Intruder’s Warrants have been filed, and finally, on September 4, 1992, the Resolution Trust Corporation, as receiver for Statesman, filed an application for Emergency Contempt, the grant of which forms the basis of this appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2526]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Wyoming Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a 
meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee will convene at 10 a.m. and 
adjourn at 12 p.m. (MST) on Saturday, February 27, 2010, at Holland 
Hart LLP, 2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 450, Cheyenne, WY 82003.
    The purpose of the meeting is to brief the committee on civil 
rights issues and the state of civil rights in Wyoming. Briefings will 
be conducted by a professor in the education department of the 
University of Wyoming and the president of the NAACP-Cheyenne Chapter. 
The committee will discuss recent Commission and regional activities, 
and plan future activities.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the Rocky Mountain Regional Office by 
March 27, 2010. The address is 1961 Stout Street, Suite 240, Denver, CO 
80294. Persons wishing to email their comments, or to present their 
comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire additional information 
should contact the regional office at (303) 866-1040 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f590979a9d9a87b58086969687db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e4b4c4146415c6e5b5d4d4d5c00494158">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both 
before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this 
advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office 
at the above email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated at Washington, DC, February 2, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-2526 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Denard JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-1550.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 28, 2011.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 2011.

Denard Jones, 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.

WOLF, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 15 2004

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO ZAMARRIPA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

T. C. PETERSON, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-6145

(Western District of Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. CV-04-341-M)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This matter is before the court on Antonio Zamarripa’s appeal from the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition.
-2-

Zamarripa is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). 

He alleges that his 120-month term of incarceration will end on November 24,

2004. On March 19, 2004, Zamarripa filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. In the

petition, Zamarripa alleged that the BOP is required, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

3624(c), to transfer him to a halfway house or to home confinement for the last

six months of his term of incarceration. 

“A necessary predicate for the granting of federal habeas relief . . . is a

determination by the federal court that [petitioner’s] custody violates the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Rose v. Hodges , 423 U.S. 19,

21 (1975). The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition sua sponte ,

concluding that Zamarripa had failed to state a claim for federal habeas relief

because his petition did not allege a violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States. The district court relied on Prows v. Federal Bureau

of Prisons , 981 F.2d 466, 469 (10th Cir. 1992) in which this court held that

“[n]othing in § 3624(c) indicates any intention to encroach upon the [BOP’s]

authority to decide where the prisoner may be confined during the pre-release

period.” Accordingly, Zamarripa has no right pursuant to § 3624(c) to placement

in any particular type of pre-release program.
-3-

Upon review of Zamarripa’s appellate brief and de novo review of the

entire record on appeal, this court affirms the dismissal of Zamarripa’s § 2241

petition for substantially the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated April 15, 2004 and the district court’s Order dated April

22, 2004. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
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 Quarterly Report of Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Janie S. Brown, 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:



|1. | The Form 10-Q 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
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Form 10Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  | 
|--------------------- |  | 
|Dated January 6, 2004 |  | 
|                      |  | 
|                      |  |
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Pretty Valley Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 13, 2015
No. 87-1228.

#### Pennwalt Corp. *v.*Durand-Wayland, Inc.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
exv10w30






December 12, 2007




Cofina Financial

Attn: Brian Legried

5500 Cenex Drive

Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077




Re:Amendment to Amended and Restated Loan Origination and Participation Agreement Dear




Mr. Legried:



AgStar Financial Services. PCA d./b/a ProPartners Financial
(“ProPartners”), Cofina Financial, LLC (“Cofina”) and CHS Inc. (“CHS”)
are parties to an Amended and Restated Loan Origination and
Participation Agreement dated October 31, 2006 (“Agreement”) whereby
Cofina has agreed to originate and participate to ProPartners certain
loans under Cofina’s agricultural production and processing financing
program (“the Program”) based on terms and conditions set forth in the
Agreement. All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.








Cofina and ProPartners hereby agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:





	 	1	 	Cofina may participate portions of loans (“Coop Loan”) to certain eligible
cooperatives to ProPartners.
	 
	 	2.	 	Coop Loans will be placed into a separate pool within the 15%
of guarantee pool, as defined in the Agreement, however, the loans within the
Coop Loan pool will be priced to Cofina at Prime minus 115.
	 
	 	3.	 	Cofina will be able to add to or pay down the Coop Loan pool as needed.
	 
	 	4.	 	Cofina will maintain all loan servicing. accounting and
customer contact for the loans in the Coop Loan pool.
	 
	 	5.	 	Cofina will provide their internal credit report and related
financials to ProPartners of cooperatives that are proposed to be included in the Coop Lean
pool. Approval by ProPartners is required prior to placing loans into the
Coop Loan pool. Approval action by ProPartners will be completed within
five days after all information is received from Cofina.
	 
	 	6.	 	Cofina will provide it monthly listing of the
loans and participation amount of the loans in the Coop Loan pool
to reconcile to the total Coop Loan pool amount.
	 
	 	7.	 	Interest on the Coop Loan pool will he paid by Cofina monthly on the
10th of the month for the previous months interest.





 









 






	 	8.	 	No past due loans will be allowed into the Coop
Loan pool. If a loan goes 30 days past maturity or is classified
less than Acceptable, Cofina will purchase the loan back
immediately and take out of the Coop Loan pool.




All other portions of the Agreement with the foregoing by executing
this letter agreement in the space provided below.



Please acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing by executing this
letter agreement in the space provided below.



AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA,

D/B/A PROPARTNERS FINANCIAL




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	 

	 	 	 	 
	Its:

	 	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 	 	 






Agreed and acknowledged this                      day of December, 2007.




COFINA FINANCIAL, LLC




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	 

	 	 	 	 
	Its:
#### PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Maikel ORTEGA, Respondent.

No. 3D10-2172.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 29, 2010.

Seipp & Flick and Douglas H. Stein and Stephanie Martinez, Miami, for petitioner.

Mark J. Feldman, Miami, for respondent.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and SUAREZ and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

*784PER CURIAM.

Denied. *See Duncan v. United Auto. Ins. Co.,*49 So.3d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AMENDMENT OF RULE 1.2 OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF 

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 147

DISCIPLINARY RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 2016, upon the recommendation of the 

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; the proposal to amend 

Pa.R.P.C. 1.2 having been published for comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, 46

Pa.B. 2274 (May 7, 2016):

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of 

Pennsylvania that Rule 1.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is amended in the 

attached form.

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and 

shall be effective in 30 days.

Additions to the rules are in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rules are shown in bold and brackets.
NO. 07-09 -034 7-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JAN UA RY

8, 2010

_________

_________

_________

___ CHARLIE E. BE CKHAM, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 3- 402,627 ; H ON ORABLE CE CI L PU RY EAR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
Pursuantto a g uil ty

pl ea i n 2004, Appel lan t, Cha rl ie E. B e ck h a m , w as pla ced on deferred adj udi cat ion fo r ag g ra v ated ass aul t. H e w as pla ced on c ommunity su per v is ion for tw o y ears. In 2006, pursuantto a g uilty p le a , Ap pel lan t w as adj udi cat ed g uil ty for vio la t io n s o f

t h e t e rm s a n d co n d it io n s o f co m m u n it y su p e rv i s i o n a n d se n t e n c e d t o f ive2

y ears con f inem ent , suspe nde d in favor of f iv e y ears comm unity supe rv ision. In Jan uary 20 09 , th e St at e mo v ed to r ev ok e c om mu ni ty s up er v i s i on for mu l ti pl e v i ol at i on s o f t he t er ms and cond itions th ereo f . Appe llant en tered a plea o f not true to one of

the St ate ’s all eg ati ons and tr ue to the re maini ng all eg ati ons. The tr ial cour t re v oked co m munity super v is ion and sent enced Appel lan t t o fiv e y ears c onfinement.
Pen ding be f o re t h is Co urt is Appe llant’s Motion to Dism iss Appe al in w hic h he
re present s he w is hes to w it hdraw his noti ce of appeal and dis mis s t he appe al. As req uired by R ule 42.2 (a ) of the Tex as Rul es of App e lla te Proc edure, t he moti on i s s ig ned by Appel lan t and hi s a ttor ney . No d e cis io n o f thi s C our

t hav ing been del iv ered, t he moti on is g ra n t e d a n d t h e a p p e a l i s d i s mi s s e d

. N o mo t i o n fo r r e h e a r i n g w i l l b e e n t e rt a i n e d and
our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.
Acc ordin g ly , t he appe al is di smi ss ed.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not p ubl is h.
No. 87-6572.

#### Cedar *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   November 14, 2008
    
    

    /s/  Laurie L. LathamDate
    
    
    Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6th Floor         | 301 Bellevue Parkway 3rd Floor |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Wilimingtom, DE  19809 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets LLC |
| Attn:  Robert Castle                  | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 10th Floor, MC 482-B10-A68 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2014-1 |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of  June 18, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

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

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                       7,798,231
<SECURITIES>                                50,796,265
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            59,494,100
<PP&E>                                      11,266,131
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,940,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,847,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          792,134
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       140,924
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,824,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,847,442
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,329,794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,329,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,329,794)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carlos JACKSON.

No. 2011-KK-0155.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 24, 2011.

In re Jackson, Carlos; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 498-368; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0043.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant with reasons.