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

                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                   May 5, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
                       under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                      Form 20-F [X]          Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
                Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information
                to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                            Yes [ ]          No [X]

 If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
                 in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):82- ________


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT LIST


Exhibit        Description
-------        -----------

99.1           Press Release, dated May 4, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc. Status
               Update.




<PAGE>



                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: May 5, 2005

                                     HOLLINGER INC.

                                     By  /s/ Peter G. White
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:   Peter G. White
                                         Title:  Vice President, Operations
                                                 and Secretary
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Herb Adams, 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:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   

Dated this 15 day of April, 2008.

/s/  HERB ADAMSHerb AdamsChief Executive Officer




























---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward W. Bouvia, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 849]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered April 29, 2011, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In 2010, defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth *1368degree, and he was sentenced to five years of probation. He was charged several months later with violating the terms of his probation in numerous respects, including by consuming alcohol and using multiple illegal drugs. After defendant admitted to the violations in full, County Court revoked his probation and resentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 2 to 6 years. He now appeals.

We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive and, accordingly, affirm. Defendant has a prior criminal record and has repeatedly proved unable to abide by the terms of probation. He also has relapsed into drug and alcohol use despite efforts to treat his substance abuse, and admittedly had “no excuse” for doing so. Indeed, County Court indicated that a prison sentence was needed here so that defendant could avail himself of substance abuse treatment programs that were unavailable in the local jail and that could ultimately shorten the length of his confinement. In view of the foregoing, as well as defendant’s awareness that he could receive any legally permissible prison term upon resentencing, we perceive no abuse of discretion or any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction of the resentence *(see People v Lavalley,*100 AD3d 1151, 1151-1152 [2012]; *People v Gray,*53 AD3d 684, 685 [2008]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       74,805
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      6,059
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          15,714
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         4,891
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   3,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,759
<COMMON>                                         5,715
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       18,241
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              9,772
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  33,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        321
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            40,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               7,825
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  22,885
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  104,759
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       41,626
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,790
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       9,498
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      12,897
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          7,971
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,666
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   9,637
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         3,387
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,979
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         12
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    2,967
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         1,934
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           4,601
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Peter C. Irvine, Appellant, v Kathleen M. Rogers, as Acting Judge of St. Lawrence County Court, et al., Respondents.

Decided February 24, 2009

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
Wells Fargo Logo
            
            Commercial
      Mortgage ServicingMAC
    A0357-030P.O. Box 4036,
      Concord, Ca 945241320 Willow Pass Rd.,
      Suite 300Concord, CA
      94520800
  986-9711






ANNUAL
STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE


Re: BACM
2007-1
  In
accordance with Section 3.1 of that certain Subservicing Agreement dated
February 1, 2007 ("Agreement"), executed by and between Bank of America,
National Association (as "Master Servicer"), and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association (as "Subservicer") as an authorized officer of the Subservicer I
certify that (A) a review of the Subservicer's activities during the preceding
calendar year, or portion thereof, and of the Subservicer's performance under
this Agreement, has been made under my supervision and (B) to be best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such year
or portion thereof.
  Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A.
 "Subservicer"
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1996 Long-TermIncentive Plan, the 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Form S-3 of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., and the related Prospectus of our reports dated December 1, 2005, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 24, 2005. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Diego, California 

December 1, 2005
Exhibit 10.11


AMENDMENT 


TO THE
edge therapeutics, inc. 


2010 EQUITY
INCENTIVE Plan


 


AMENDMENT TO THE EDGE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN, made as of June 30, 2014 (this “Amendment”).


 


1.     Pursuant to Section 8 of the Edge
Therapeutics, Inc. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), effective upon the approval of the stockholders of Edge
Therapeutics, Inc., the second sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:


 


“3(a)     The maximum number
of Shares that may be subject to Options or Restricted Stock under the Plan is 1,847,500.


 


Except as specifically provided in and modified
by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed and references to the Plan shall
be deemed to refer to the Plan as modified by this Amendment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused
this Amendment to the Edge Therapeutics, Inc. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 30th
day of June, 2014.


 



 


	 	 EDGE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 By:	 /s/ Brian A. Leuthner
	 	 	 Name: Brian A. Leuthner
	 	 	 Title: Chief Executive Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 23, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00797

- CR

Marchelo Lamont Pryce, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES , JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudicat ion of costs is made.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Miller, Appellant.

[961 NYS2d 787]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 15, 2011 *(People v Miller,*81 AD3d 854 [2011]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 6, 2007.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Residential Funding Company, LLC

RAMP Series 2007-RS1 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2007 (as amended from time to time, the
Agreement), among Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., as depositor, Residential Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, 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
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23.2

                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                          ----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-52490 and 333-47764) and S-8 (Nos. 333-52488, 333-43220,
333-94817 and 333-92729) of The TriZetto Group, Inc. of our report dated
February 1, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of The TriZetto Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2001.

Ernst &Young LLP
Orange County, California
June 25, 2002


                                        1
[906 NE2d 1057, 879 NYS2d 25]

#### In the Matter of Francis M. Alessandro.

Decided March 26, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert E Roche*for petitioner.

*Robert H. Tembeckjian*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On the Court’s own motion, it is determined that Honorable Francis M. Alessandro is suspended, with pay, effective *767immediately, from the office of Judge of the New York City Civil Court, Bronx County, pending disposition of his request for review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Richard Morgan, Appellant, v Peter Behrle, as Superintendent of Greene Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 564]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Fulver Jr., J.), entered December 10, 2007 in Greene County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 70, without a hearing.

Fetitioner commenced this CFLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus contending that the warrant used to secure a blood sample from him lacked probable cause. Inasmuch as petitioner could, and apparently did, advance this claim on his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction *(People v Morgan,*48 AD3d 703 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 962 [2008]), habeas corpus relief does not lie *(see People ex rel. Cropper v Taylor,*48 AD3d 852, 853 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 710 [2008]; *People ex rel. Encarnacion v McGinnis,*2 AD3d 933 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 510 [2004]). Moreover, even assuming that petitioner’s argument had merit, habeas corpus relief nonetheless would be inappropriate as petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release from prison *(see People ex rel. King v Bennett,*45 AD3d 1015, 1016 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 703 [2008]). Accordingly, Supreme Court’s judgment is affirmed.

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**STATMON
      TECHNOLOGIES CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      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; 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: November
              14, 2005
            By:
            /s/Geoffrey
              P. Talbot
              Chief
                Executive Officer





A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will
        be
        retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         706,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              122,170,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                12,469,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,076,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           111,483,000
<PP&E>                                       6,758,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,291,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             120,792,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       99,616,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    201,000
<COMMON>                                       302,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               120,792,000
<SALES>                                      4,592,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,592,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             4,891,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,422,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,388,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,388,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,388,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.51)
        

</TABLE>
lasalle bank logoLaSalle
      Bank N.A.135 South LaSalle
      StreetSuite
  1625Chicago, IL
      60603Global Securities and Trust
      Services














Annual
Statement of Compliance
 
 VIA:
EMAIL
 
 Banc of
America Commercial Mortgage Inc.
 214 North
Tryon Street, NC1-027-22-03
 Charlotte,
North Carolina 28255
 
 Re:           Banc
of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-1
 
 
 Reference
is made to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of
February 1, 2007, among Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor,
Bank of America, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, Inc.,
as Special Servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee and REMIC
Administrator.
 
 I,
Barbara L. Marik, a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Trustee and REMIC Administrator hereby certify that:
 
 (1)
A review of the activities of the Trustee and REMIC Administrator during the
preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Trustee and REMIC
Administrator under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;
and
 
 (2)
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee and REMIC
Administrator have fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all
material respects throughout such year or a portion thereof.
 
 
 Date:
February 27, 2008
 
 LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Trustee and REMIC Administrator
 
 
 /s/
Barbara L. Marik
 Barbara
L. Marik
 Senior
Vice President
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132331 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 10 & SCOTIA PLAZA, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132331 COA: 269184 Oakland CC: 2005-008323-AV ALL OCCUPANTS, Defendant-Appellee, and

GRINDERZ OAK PARK, INC., Intervening Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 14, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 4, 2007

Clerk
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00649-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.G.M., I.G.M., and O.M.M., Children

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-PA-01163

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant is indigent. No costs are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED February 1, 2017.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice