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

EXHIBIT 15.1

 

July 21, 2003

 

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 the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072) related to the resale of common shares deliverable upon the exchange of Liquid Yield Option Notes, and in the related Prospectuses, as applicable, contained in such Registration Statements of our report dated July 8, 2003, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Genentech, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003.

            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.
#### Lylane Sum, Appellant, v Tishman Speyer Properties, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

Motion by Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Aldana Perez, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 292]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered April 20, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (10 counts) and burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]). Angiolillo, J.P, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10715 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. ANTHON Y W AYNE L I GH TF OOT, J R D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 8
- CR- 3
- ALL B ef ore SM ITH , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * The Fed e r alPubl i c D e fe nde ra ppo i nt e d t o r e pr e s e nt Ant ho ny W ay ne L ig h tfo o t, J r ., h a s m o v e d fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w a n d h a s file d a b r ie f in ac c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 738 ( 196 7) . L i gh t f ootha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of th e record an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o non f

ri vo lou s i ssue f

or app eal . A ccor di n gl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f or l eave t o w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r espon sibi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

LTWC
Corporation
Stamford, Connecticut

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 and S-8 (Nos. 333-75232, 333-70106, 333-67750, 333-89053, 333-31902, 333-42566, and
333-89053) of LTWC Corporation of our report dated March 28, 2003 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

Valhalla,
New York
April 15, 2003

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Inoa, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 530]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, *766J.), rendered December 14, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the first and second degrees, attempted murder in the second degree, conspiracy in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 73 Vs years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting a detective to testify as an expert with regard to coded or unexplained language contained in recorded conversations, and the detective did not go beyond the proper bounds of expert testimony *(see People v Polanco,*50 AD3d 587, 587 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 834 [2008]; *see also People v Brown,*97 NY2d 500, 505 [2002]). The expert’s opinion was based on “facts in evidence or on those personally known and testified to by the expert” *(People v Jones,*73 NY2d 427, 430 [1989]), and he properly relied on information “of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable” or provided by “a witness subject to full cross-examination” *(id.).*“In interpreting the coded communications . . . the expert properly placed them in light of other facts already in evidence, including facts personally known and testified to by him” *(People v Contreras,*28 AD3d 393, 394 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 847 [2006]). To the extent any of the expert testimony could be viewed as improper, we find the error to be harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We do not find that there was anything in the testimony of the People’s principal fact witness that warrants reversal. While the People employed some leading questions, and the witness sometimes gave her interpretation of facts in evidence, the court acted within its discretion in according the People appropriate leeway in these matters, and the witness’s testimony was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial. Any hearsay in the witness’s testimony constituted declarations made by coconspirators during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy *(see People v Caban, 5*NY3d 143, 148 [2005]), or was otherwise admissible. In any event, we likewise find any error to be harmless.

To the extent defendant is raising a Confrontation Clause argument concerning any alleged hearsay introduced through either of the above-discussed witnesses, we find that argument to be without merit. The People did not introduce any testimonial statements made by nontestifying declarants *(see generally Crawford v Washington,*541 US 36 [2004]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that he murdered the victim for hire as set forth in Penal Law § 125.27 (1) (a) (vi) and *767to the admissibility of evidence of an uncharged crime. Concur— Sweeny, J.E, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Re: MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2007-WMC1

  I, Melissa Loiselle, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2007-WMC1
    (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
     light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
     misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
     and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in
     preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report
     under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance
     with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and
     15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
     otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
     noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
     report on Form
     10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Ocwen
    Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 31, 2008


    /s/ Melissa Loiselle
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00451]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-001-2015]


Foreign-Trade Zone 30--Salt Lake City, Utah, Application for 
Subzone, Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) by the Salt Lake City Corporation, grantee of FTZ 30, 
requesting subzone status for the facility of Red Wing Shoe Company, 
Inc., located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The application was submitted 
pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended 
(19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 
400). It was formally docketed on January 8, 2015.
    The proposed subzone (10.8 acres) is located at 1841, 1883, 1901 
and 1941 South 5070 West, Salt Lake City. No authorization for 
production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed 
subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 30.
    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the 
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address 
below. The closing period for their receipt is February 23, 2015. 
Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to March 10, 2015.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#66050e140f151209160e0314480d030b1626121407020348010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90f3f8e2f9e3e4ffe0f8f5e2befbf5fde0d0e4e2f1f4f5bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0862.

    Dated: January 8, 2015.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00451 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  ------------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Security  National   Financial
Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, George R. Quist, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
              material   respects,   the  financial   condition  and  result  of
              operations of the Company.



By:    /s/ George R. Quist
       -----------------------
       George R. Quist
       Chief Executive Officer
       August 13, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-15-003]

## Corrections to Government in the Sunshine Notice

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

 United States International Trade Commission.

# DATE:

 January 12, 2015.

# PLACE:

 Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

 Open to the public.

In accordance with 19 CFR 201.35(d)(2)(i), the Commission hereby gives notice the correct investigation number for the meeting of January 12, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. is 731-TA-1153 (Review) and the correct title is Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this change was not possible.

By order of the Commission:

Issued: January 8, 2015.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-00340 Filed 1-8-15; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JORDAN J. JAHEEM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CA 15-0663-CG-C

)

AIDT MARITIME TRAINING 

CENTER,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) dated September 7, 2016 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00663-CG-C Document 10 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Smith, Appellant.

Submitted September 14, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 411.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
<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

                                February 8, 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

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit      Description
-------      -----------
<S>          <C>
99.1         Press Release, dated February 7, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc.
             Status Update.
</TABLE>

<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:  February 8, 2005

                                  HOLLINGER INC.

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

Case below: 166 N.C. App. 281

No. 536P04-2

Def’s PWC to Review the Decision of the COA (COA03-938)

Denied 10/11/07
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter J. Maliszewski, Appellant.

Submitted June 22, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Mary Davison, Esq. care of Davison Law Office, PO Box 652, Canandaigua, New York 14424 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William L. Hilts, Also Known as T and True, Appellant.

Submitted December 1, 2008;

decided February 19, 2009

Motion to vacate this Court’s July 14, 2008 dismissal order granted *[see*10 NY3d 954 (2008)]. Motion for assignment of counsel granted and David Lazer, Esq., care of Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville Law Center, 225 Old Country Road, Melville, New York 11747-2712 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
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
Team, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip J. Hawk, Chairman and 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/    PHILIP J.
HAWK                              
|Philip J. Hawk Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

October 9, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DYWAN KING, aka Doughboy, aka DJ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00052-JRS-4; 3:06-cv-00845-JRS)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dywan King, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dywan King seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that King has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED