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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         (17,564)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,100
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,564)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.008)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.008)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 32(2)


                                 CERTIFICATION

           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
         (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 TITLE 18,
                              UNITED STATES CODE)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Doral Financial Corporation, a Puerto Rico corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the
"Form l0-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
l3(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated : November 13, 2003

                                        By:    /s/ Richard F. Bonini
                                           ____________________________________
                                        Name:  Richard F. Bonini
                                        Title: Senior Executive Vice President
                                               and Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies this Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that Section.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to, and will be retained by, the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connectionwith the annual report of Internet Gold-Golden Lines Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Itzik Tadmor, PrincipalFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 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 result of operationsof the Company.

 

/s/ Itzik Tadmor*

ItzikTadmor

Principal Financial Officer

April18, 2016

 

*	The originally executed copy of this Certificationwill be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.

 

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-Fpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed tobe incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to theextent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          43,420
<SECURITIES>                                 2,650,782
<RECEIVABLES>                                  196,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,861,803
<PP&E>                                          71,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,982,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,630
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        94,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,833,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,982,669
<SALES>                                        678,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               825,556
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               147,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                678,425
<INCOME-TAX>                                   210,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            467,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   467,768
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56


</TABLE>
---



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 First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick L. Wessel, Chief Executive 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, as amended; 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:  May 7, 2008



/s/ Rick L. WesselRick L. Wessel
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1647 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1647

To redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem 
       Maritime National Historical Park'', and for the purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

 Mr. Moulton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem 
       Maritime National Historical Park'', and for the purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Salem Maritime National Historical 
Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act''.

SEC. 2. SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    (a) Redesignation.--The Salem Maritime National Historic Site shall 
hereafter be known and designated as the ``Salem Maritime National 
Historical Park''.
    (b) References in Law.--Any reference to the Salem Maritime 
National Historic Site in any law, regulation, map, document, record, 
or other paper of the United States shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the Salem Maritime National Historical Park.

SEC. 3. BOUNDARY STUDY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a boundary study to 
evaluate the suitability and feasibility of including in the National 
Park System, as part of the Salem Maritime National Historical Park (as 
redesignated by section 2(a)), sites and resources in the study area 
associated with the study area's--
            (1) maritime history;
            (2) coastal defenses; and
            (3) military history, including National Guard and militia 
        activity.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which funds 
are made available to conduct the study required under subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources of the Senate a report containing--
            (1) the results of the study; and
            (2) any findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 
        Secretary.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means Salem, 
        Massachusetts, and its vicinity, and includes the Salem Armory 
        Visitor Center building and adjacent Salem Armory Park.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the Annual Report of KANA Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael S. Fields, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.





|                    |  |                                           |  | 
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: July 6, 2006 |  | /s/ MICHAEL S. FIELDS                     |  | 
|                    |  | Michael S. Fields Chief Executive
Officer |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Laki ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4899.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 6, 2001.

James R. Fox, Jory & Smith, Elkins, WV, for appellant. Melvin W. Kahle, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, WV, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Laki Ross appeals from his conviction following his guilty plea to one count of conspiring to travel in interstate commerce to bring cocaine and crack cocaine into West Virginia, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994), and one count of traveling in interstate commerce to bring crack cocaine into West Virginia, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (1994), for which the district court sentenced him to consecutive sixty-month prison terms. Ross’ sole claim on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

This court reviews the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of *233discretion. *United States v. Craig,*985 F.2d 175, 178 (4th Cir.1993). Based on the factors set out in *United States v. Moore,*931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991), we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm Ross’ conviction and sentence. 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.*
**Exhibit 15.2**

May 5, 2010 

Beckman Coulter, Inc.

250 S. Kraemer Boulevard 

Brea, CA92821 

Re: Registration Statement Nos. 333-155275, 333-145422, 333-100904, 333-156005, 333-24851, 333-37429, 33-31573, 33-41519,33-51506, 33-66990, 33-66988, 333-69291, 333-59099, 333-69249, 333-69251, 333-1262941, 333-72896 and 333-72892 

With respect to the subjectregistration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated May 5, 2010, related to our review of interim financial information. 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), such report is not considered part of a registration statement preparedor certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Irvine, California
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN BROOKS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WHITSON; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-17424

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00682-JAMDAD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Steven Brooks, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim,

FILED

OCT 11 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17424

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Brooks failed to

state sufficient facts to show that a protected liberty or property interest was at

stake. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process

protections “adhere only when the disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty

interest in some unexpected [manner] or imposes an atypical and significant

hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Brooks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
#### Laura A. Storey v. Allen C. Dutton et al.

*Bights of mortgagers under paid-up lease given as additional seewrity*— Per*mission to hold over*— ■Application *of rental on mortgage debt.*

Where a paid-up lease for a certain period was given to mortgagees as additional security, and the mortgagees had the option to hold over-on paying a fair rental, the foreclosure of the mortgage would not prevent them from resorting to any additional security they might have, and they would have a right to apply the amount of rent due-from them and unpaid, in satisfaction of their debt; and if the mortgager should assign his claim for rent to a third person, the latter would have no better right than his assignor and could not. recover it until the foreclosure decree is extinguished.

Error to Eaton.

Submitted June 29.

Decided Oct. 5.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Crane & Dodge*and *M. V. Montgomery*for plaintiff in error.

*Corbin & Cobb*for defendant in error.

Marston, C. J.

Tbe facts upon which this case arises are set forth in *Dutton v. Merritt*41 Mich. 537. The plaintiff in this case seeks, as assignee of Merritt’s interest in the lease referred to, the rental value of the premises *540not already credited upon the mortgage foreclosure decree. The fact that defendants have occupied the premises, and that they must pay a fair rental therefor, is not questioned, but they claim the right to apply the rent upon the amount still due them upon the decree.

The fact that these defendants foreclosed the mortgage given them would not deprive them of the right to resort to any other security they held in order to obtain full satisfaction of the debt; and the mortgagor could not deprive them of this right by assigning the' due and unpaid rent to a third person. The latter could acquire no better right than that of his assignor, who could not have sued for and recovered the rent in this case. "While the defendants remain in possession the fair rental value of the premises must be applied in reduction of the decree until the extinguishment thereof, and until the happening of that event, an action will not lie to recover rent which may be due and uncredited.

It follows that the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
##### 



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 Bay View Capital Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the
Report), I, John Okubo, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby 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:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company for the periods presented therein. Date: August 13, 2004 /s/ John OkuboJohn OkuboExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Bay View Capital Corporation and will be retained by Bay View
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### Charles A. Corey v. William Alderman and James Nickerson.

*Priority of mortgage*— Praud *v/pon nm'tgagee,*

A mortgager and his grantee conspired to cheat the mortgagee thus: The grantee quitclaimed to him in satisfaction of his foreclosure decree and the mortgager then recorded a later mortgage from the grantee to himself before the quitclaim deed could be recorded. *Held,*that the later mortgage should beset aside and the quitclaim deed permitted to stand.

Appeal from Ionia.

Submitted June 20.

Decided Oct. 5.

Bill to set aside the discharge of mortgage. Defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

*541*Mitchel & Pratt*for complainant.

Equity will revive or suppress an ineumbrance as may be just: *Forbes v. Moffat*18 Ves. 384; *Starr v. Ellis*6 Johns. Ch. 393; *Barnes v. Camack*1 Barb. 396; *Bruse v. Nelson*35 Iowa 357 Story’s Eq. Jur. § 110, n 1; 2 Jones Mort. § 971.

*Wells & Morse*for defendants.

Campbell, J.

Complainant having a purchase-money mortgage on lands in Ionia county conveyed to Nickerson - in 1867, and having no personal obligation secured by it, proceeded in chancery to foreclose, and obtained a decree in March, 1879, for $4716.51.' He had begun to advertise, when Nickerson proposed to reconvey the property in satisfaction of the decree. This reconveyance was made by quitclaim deed on the 15th of May, 1880, too -late for record on that day. On the same day, a little while before this deed was delivered, the defendant Alderman put on record a mortgage from Nickerson for the sum of $1800. Corey executed a discharge of his mortgage at the time when the deed was made.

Corey now files his bill to set aside this discharge and have his decree and mortgage reinstated, in preference to' the Alderman mortgage. He claims that this latter was exeeuted.and recorded fraudulently, in order to cheat him out of his claim, by conspiracy between Alderman and Nickerson. The circuit court' gave the relief prayed, and defendants appeal.

The facts in the case make it clear that either complainant was trying to get a conveyance recorded first in order to> defeat Alderman’s mortgage, or that the latter was trying to-defraud complainant. The land is not worth enough to pay complainant in full.

Ve have no doubt the decree below was founded on the true state ,of facts. It' appears that complainant, immediately before exchanging papers, had carefully examined the records, and there is no possible motive which can be supported by the evidence, for his running any risks whatever as to priority. In the conflict of testimony we think his *542version is correct, and that the defendants got np the Aider-man mortgage and procured its registry for the purpose of ■destroying his priority of title. It would be of little use, on a mere question of fact, to enlarge upon the details. ¥e rare satisfied of the fraud.

The court below might properly have set aside the Aider-man mortgage and allowed the deed to stand. Complainant ■ought not to have been put to the expense of further advertising and sale. As he has not appealed the decree will have to be affirmed as it stands, with costs of both courts ■and $15 damages for delay.

The other Justices concurred.