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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         184,535
<SECURITIES>                                   895,692
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,543
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,294
<INVENTORY>                                     92,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,132,950
<PP&E>                                         743,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                 257,978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,965,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          230,393
<BONDS>                                        176,082
<COMMON>                                         2,376
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,530,211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,965,577
<SALES>                                        481,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               695,931
<CGS>                                           75,431
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               268,097
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,455
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                142,113
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,317
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            120,796
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





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





I, Masaaki (John) Nishibori, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of CAI International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of CAI International, Inc.





Date: March 15, 2011By:
/S/    MASAAKI (JOHN) NISHIBORIMasaaki (John) NishiboriPresident and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 15.1


October 9, 2001


The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, the 1999
Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option
Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and the 1991 Employee Stock
Plan and in the related prospectuses, as applicable, contained in such
Registration Statements of our report dated October 8, 2001 relating to the
unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Genentech,
Inc. which are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2001.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the
meaning of section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                                         Very truly yours,




                                                         /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                         --------------------
                                                            Ernst & Young LLP
----

----

| Name                                                          |   | Place of Incorporation |   | Percentage of Ownership |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| B Communications Ltd.                                         |   | Israel                 |   | 66.71%                  |
|                                                          |   |                   |   |                    |
| Subsidiaries of B Communications Ltd.                         |   |                   |   |                    |
| Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (TASE: BZEQ) |   | Israel                 |   | 30.89%                  |
| B Communications (SP1) Ltd.                                   |   | Israel                 |   | 100%                    |
| B Communications (SP2) Ltd.                                   |   | Israel                 |   | 100%                    |

----

----
Annual
Statement as to Compliance
 For the
Year Ended December 31, 2007
 
 
 Morgan
Stanley Capital I Inc.
 Series
2007-HQ11
 
 
 Pursuant
to the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction, I
hereby attest that:
 
 i.    A
review of the activities of Capmark Finance Inc. as Primary Servicer during the
period, and of its performance under this Subservicing Agreement, has been made
under my supervision.
 
 
 ii.   To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Capmark Finance Inc. as Primary
Servicer, has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under
this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period.
 
 
 Capmark
Finance Inc.
 
 
 /s/ Mark
E. McCool
 
 By:
              Mark
      E. McCoolTitle:
              Managing
      DirectorDate:
              February
      20, 2008
 
 
 .inv
112   lib A
 
 
 
 
 Capmark
      Finance Inc.116
      Welsh RoadReal
      Estate Finance, Investment, Services
                Horsham,
      Pa 19044
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

HUGH OSCAR KUNSELMAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-153

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 29, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Sarasota County; Frederick P. 

Mercurio, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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
Registrant as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
  By:
    
    /s/ Philip Cook

Philip Cook
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Thomas F. Darden

Thomas F. DardenSenior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    
    
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 16-1509

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TERRENCE BYRD,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1-14-cr-00321-001)

Honorable William W. Caldwell, U.S. District Judge

____________________________________

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States 

on June 15, 2018

Submitted on Remand Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

on June 18, 2018

Before: FISHER1

, KRAUSE and MELLOY2, Circuit Judges

_____________

ORDER

_____________

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant in the above-entitled case having 

been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, it is hereby 

O R D E R E D that the petition for rehearing by the panel is GRANTED. Pursuant to 3d 

 1 Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, assumed senior status on February 

1, 2017.

2 Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting 

by designation.
Cir. I.O.P. 8.3.1, the panel’s previous non-precedential opinion filed August 8, 2018 is 

hereby VACATED. The panel is issuing an opinion and accompanying judgment 

contemporaneously with this order. 

By the Court,

s/ Cheryl Ann Krause

Circuit Judge

DATED: November 21, 2018

PDB/cc: All Counsel of Record
Exhibit 31.2**Certifications**I, Jon D. Greenwood, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of MDI, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated: November 11, 2005                                       By /s/ Jon D. Greenwood   Jon D. Greenwood   Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Gen Aguirre, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 814]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After an anonymous note indicated that a weapon could be *1220found in petitioner’s cell, a search of his cell revealed a three-inch razor-type weapon taped to the underside of a desk. Petitioner was served with a misbehavior report charging him with possession of contraband. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of that charge and the determination was affirmed administratively. He thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officers present at the search and the supporting documentation provide substantial evidence to support the determination *(see Matter of Fisher v Fischer,*105 AD3d 1286, 1286 [2013]; *Matter of Shorter v Prack,*100 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2012]). Although petitioner’s access to the cell was not exclusive, a reasonable inference of possession arose by virtue of the fact that the weapon was found in an area within his control *(see Matter of Fisher v Fischer,*105 AD3d at 1286; *Matter of Lopez v Fischer,*91 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2012]). Petitioner’s denial that he owned the weapon and the claimed inconsistencies in the officers’ testimony raised credibility issues to be resolved by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Bethune v Fischer,*108 AD3d 966, 967 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 855 [2013]; *Matter of Glod v Fischer,*98 AD3d 1173, 1174 [2012]). Additionally, there was no requirement that the Hearing Officer independently assess the veracity of the anonymous note that led to the search, inasmuch as the determination of guilt was based on the contraband discovered, rather than the contents of the note itself *(see Matter of Fisher v Fischer,*105 AD3d at 1286; *Matter of Horne v Fischer,*98 AD3d 788, 789 [2012]).

Lastly, we reject petitioner’s contention that he was denied his right to call a witness, i.e., a third unnamed correction officer he alleges was involved in the search. Both officers present at the search and the commanding officer denied that another officer participated, the relevant log book entry revealed no third officer on duty, and a fellow inmate, who petitioner claimed could verify the officer’s presence, refused to testify. Under the circumstances, the Hearing Officer made reasonable efforts to identify and locate petitioner’s requested witness *(see Matter of Fowler v Fischer,*106 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 865 [2013]; *Matter of Jones v Bellamy,*80 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2011]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and have been found to be unavailing.

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### In the Matter of James S. Hartley Jr., Appellant, v Katlyn D. Post, Respondent. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

[975 NYS2d 362]

Garry, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Greene County (Pulver Jr., J.), entered October 5, 2012, which, among other things, partially granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of a child (born in 2009). In March 2012, the parties consented to a Family Court order awarding sole legal and physical custody of the child to the mother and granting supervised visits to the father, who was incarcerated. In June 2012, the father commenced the first of these proceedings seeking to modify the visitation order, and in August 2012 he commenced the second proceeding alleging a violation. Following an appearance in August 2012, Family Court issued an order modifying the timing of the visits to accommodate a change in the father’s correctional facility, and summarily dismissed the violation petition. The father appeals.

As the father concedes, his release on parole in June 2013 renders his challenge to the modification order moot *(see Matter of Samantha WW. v Gerald XX.,*107 AD3d 1313, 1315 [2013]). However, the challenge to dismissal of the violation petition remains *(see id.),*and Family Court erred in summarily dismissing this petition. The allegations, if established, were sufficient to support a finding that the father’s rights had been impaired by the mother’s willful failure to comply with the original order *(see Matter of Yishak v Ashera,*90 AD3d 1184, 1184-1185 [2011]). As factual issues were posed, a hearing should have *1094been conducted *(see Matter of Ramos v Caceres,*104 AD3d 775, 775 [2013]; *compare Matter of Brown v Mudry,*55 AD3d 828, 829 [2008]). Despite the attorney for the child’s persuasive argument that the interests of the child may not be served by such further proceedings, the matter must be remitted for that purpose.

Stein, J.E, McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as dismissed petitioner’s violation petition; matter remitted to the Family Court of Greene County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.
May 21, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MICHAEL GRAY, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00183-CV V.

CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, City of 

Galveston, Texas, signed, January 20, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore 

order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee, City of Galveston, Texas.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### FRANK A. MUIRHEAD v. CARL LUDWIG JOHNSON AND ANOTHER. CITY OF HASTINGS, INTERVENER.1

April 21, 1950.

Nos. 35,136, 35,137.

*A. M. Joyce,*for appellants.

*Kelly, LeVander & Gillen,*for respondents.

1

 Reported in 42 N. W. (2d) 318.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff and intervener moved to dismiss their respective appeals taken from a nonappealable order, without prejudice to their right to enter judgment in the action below and to appeal therefrom and to have such subsequent appeal considered upon the record and briefs already on file herein.

In direct violation of Supreme Court Rulé IV (222 Minn, xxx), plaintiff and intervener have given defendants less than eight days’ notice of hearing upon the above motions. Such motions therefore must be, and hereby are, dismissed.

However, in order to avoid a multiplicity of applications to this court, it appearing that no prejudice will result to defendants, this court of its own motion hereby dismisses the respective appeals of plaintiff and intervener herein for lack of jurisdiction. It is further ordered, in the event that judgment is subsequently entered below in the action and any appeal is taken therefrom, that such subsequent appeal may be heard and considered on the record and briefs already on file with this court.

Appeals dismissed.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Residential Funding Company, LLC

RALI Series 2007-QA2 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the Series Supplement, dated as of February 1, 2007, and the Standard Terms of Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the Agreement), among Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., as company, Residential Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entitys report
on Form 10-K and of the Servicers performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director
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
Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Wiggins, the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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 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/ Timothy J. Wiggins 
|Timothy J. Wiggins     
|Chief Financial Officer
|Date: November 10, 2009











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.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

JUNE 10 , 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

WD75677 William T Morrison Jr. vs. State of Missouri

WD76332 Ray Famous vs. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

WD76539 Terrance Wainwright vs. State of Missouri

WD76654 Cathy Lane vs. Dennis Newberry, et al

WD76746 Mason M cNail vs. City of Richmond Heights

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

None