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

                        EXHIBIT 99(A)--CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                           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 Annual Report of Sycamore Networks, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
E. Smith, 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 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


                                                      /s/  DANIEL E. SMITH
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                         Daniel E. Smith
                                                  President and Chief Executive
                                                             Officer

October 24, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Desirie Wilson, Appellant.

Submitted April 13, 2009;

decided April 30, 2009

*812Motion for assignment of counsel denied without prejudice to renewal upon submissions showing current indigency *(see*CPLR 1101).

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.1

    


    ASSIGNMENT
      AND BILL OF SALE

    


    For
      ten
      dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt
      of which is hereby acknowledged, Magnum d’Or Resources Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (“Magnum”), hereby sells, transfers and assigns to Sunrise Mining
      Corporation, a Nevada corporation that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Magnum,
      all of its mining assets including but not limited to all of its mining leases,
      contract rights, mining joint ventures, real property, personal property,
      inventory, equipment, fixtures, accounts receivable, patents, tradenames,
      vehicles, furniture, choses in action, securities, and all other mining
      properties and any interest therein, known or unknown, contingent or otherwise,
      of any kind or nature.

    FURTHER
      AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

    
      	 	 	 
	
              Dated:
                October 25, 2005

            	
              Magnum
                d’Or Resources Inc.

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	  	/s/ Xuguang
              Sun
	 	
              

              Xuguang
                Sun, Chief Executive Officer and President
##### 



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 For the month of May 2004 Commission File Number 1-14916 BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORPORATION  BCE Place
181 Bay Street
Suite 330
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5J 2T3
(416) 359-8600
(Address of principal executive offices) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover
of Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F [  ] Form 40-F [X] 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- ________




---



##### 



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 14, 2004 Brookfield Properties CorporationBy:
    
    /s/ Craig LaurieName:
    
    Craig LaurieTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Brookfield Properties Interim Report. Q1 200499.2
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Canadian Law99.3
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Canadian Law
[PricewaterhouseCoopers letterhead]
**Independent Auditors’ Consent**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement onForm S-3 (File No. 333-107487) of Hub International Limited (the “Company”) ofourreport dated February 19, 2004 relating to the consolidated financialstatements, whichappears in the Company’s Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2003,which is filed on Form 10-K.
/S/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
March 11, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<CIK> 0000318819
<NAME> R. D. SIEVERS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,543,660
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    107,353
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         179,177
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       278,922
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  39,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,148,605
<COMMON>                                        98,994
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      313,170
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            679,943
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,092,107
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           80,539
<PREFERRED>                                     17,929
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,792,680
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             156,741
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   35,790
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 972,819
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,148,605
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      451,272
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            31,051
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     299,795
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     330,846
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        120,426
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,345
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 121,771
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        72,101
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,670
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,992
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   47,678
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        29,918
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       68,187
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          98,375
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**To the Board of Directors of Fifth Third Mortgage Company We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Fifth Third Mortgage Company (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loans sold to non-government-sponsored entities for which the Company served as servicer, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 platform (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(3)(i)(c), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Exhibit A to management's assertion identifies the individual asset -backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform. Manage ment is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the residential mortgage loans sold to non-government- sponsored entities for which the Company served as servicer, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP Cincinnati, Ohio February 29, 2008
#### State v. Hopper

Case below: 181 N.C. App.-(20 February 2007)

No. 157P07

Def’s Motion for PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (06-313)

Denied 05/03/07
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.  AMOUNTS IN
THOUSANDS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         172,614
<SECURITIES>                                 1,434,841
<RECEIVABLES>                                  185,220<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    284,972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,172,818
<PP&E>                                       1,221,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                 499,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,169,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          355,446
<BONDS>                                        149,708
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,594
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,224,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,169,395
<SALES>                                        770,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,062,922
<CGS>                                          191,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               269,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,084,133)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (112,511)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (971,622)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (971,622)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (7.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.59)
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE PRESENTED NET OF ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS IN
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET.  THE PROVISION FOR LOSSES ON DOUBTFUL
ACCOUNTS IS NOT REPORTED AS A SEPARATE LINE IN THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME OR STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS.
</FN>



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

** **

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey DCushman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350),that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/  Jeffrey D. Cushman |   |
|-------------------------|--------|

 

Jeffrey D. Cushman

SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

August 10,2005

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by 18 USC Section 1350has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
"Report"), I, Anthony W. Adler, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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/ Anthony W.
Adler


Anthony
W. Adler


Principal
Financial Officer


Date:
September 21, 2009
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

[Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. letterhead] 

August 11, 2015 
 Mehdi Gasmi 

1035 O’Brien Drive 
 Suite A 

Menlo Park, California 94025 
 Re: Base Salary Increase

 Dear Mehdi: 
 Pursuant to your Special Bonus Letter,
dated July 23, 2015, you were notified of the Special Bonus of $100,000 for your services as interim Chief Scientific Officer. 
 In addition to the
Special Bonus, effective August 15, 2015, the Board of Directors of Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. has determined to increase your annual base salary to $330,000 per year. 

We greatly appreciate your services to the Company during this transition time. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Mark S. Blumenkranz
  

Mark S. Blumenkranz, M.D.
 Chairman of the Board
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ferguson A. Igbinosun, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 922]

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered March 31, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting certain exhibits in evidence because their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. We reject defendant’s contention. The exhibits were relevant in establishing defendant’s involvement in a common plan or scheme *(see People v Carelock,*278 AD2d 851 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 757 [2001]), and they also were probative on the issue of defendant’s identity *(see People v Wilson,*225 AD2d 642 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 943 [1996]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 10, 2017

jam 

# Order

Clerk August 10, 2017

156127

In re STEVENSON

__________________________________

JERMAINE STEVENSON

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 15 6127

COA: 33 6400

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff

- appellant having failed to pay the

partial filing fee as required by the order of July 1 9, 201 7 , the Clerk of the Court is

hereby directed to close this file.
Exhibit
      32




Certification
      Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





(18
      U.S.C. 1350)








Persuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
      undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited
      partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General
      Partner's knowledge and belief, that:





1.
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the "Form
      10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Company.





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






/s/MICHEL
                E. MAES
            /s/JAMES
                R. STEFFEYMichel
                E. Maes
            James
                R. SteffeyCo-General
                Partner
            Co-General
                PartnerDate:
                7-26-07
            Date:
                7-26-07
#### Dean G. Skelos et al., as Duly Elected Members of the New York State Senate, Respondents, v David Paterson, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 339.

Motion by Gerald Benjamin et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
State of New York

Court of Appeals This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to 

revision before publication in the New York Reports.

No. 108 SSM 18

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Jaime Cruz, 

 Appellant.

Submitted by Harold V. Ferguson, Jr., for appellant.

Submitted by Alan Gadlin, for respondent.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed and 

accusatory instrument dismissed. As the People acknowledge, the accusatory 

instrument's misdemeanor count, to which defendant pleaded guilty, was facially 

deficient (see People v Hill, 38 NY3d 460, 462 [2022]). The People consent to dismissal 

of the remaining portion of the accusatory instrument. Acting Chief Judge Cannataro and 

Judges Rivera, Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Troutman concur.

Decided December 13, 2022
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No. 07 - 12 - 0502 - CR

________________________

Lisa Marie Fletcher, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On Appeal from the 108 th District Court Potter County, Texas Tri a l Court No . 58,749 - E, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn , Presiding 

### April 10 , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Lisa Marie Fletcher (appellant) appeals her conviction for tampering with a government record. She was originally placed on three years deferred adjudication after plea ding guilty to the indictment. Subsequently, the State filed to adjudicate appellant’s guilt which the trial court granted and sentenced her to two years in a sta te jail facility. Appellant’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, together2 with an Anders 1 brief, wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. No response has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal , which included sufficiency of the evi dence to support adjudication and whether the grounds alleged supported adjudication of guilt. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issues were without merit. In addition, we have conducted our own review of the record to assess the accurac y of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel’s conclusions. We have noted that in the judgment, court costs were asse ssed against appellant and that those costs included attorney’s fees of $800 paid for the revocation hearing. There is no evidence in the record that appellant has the ability to pay those attorney’s fees so their assessment against her was error. See May er v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 556 - 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment is modified to delete any obligation to pay attorney’s fees and, as modified, is affirmed. Brian Quinn Chie f Justice Do not publish. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 - 45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).