alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT            TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Mountains West            Exploration, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2007 as            filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the            undersigned,Lee Wiskowski, President and principal executive            officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted            pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his            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            results of operations of the Company.

 

|                   |   |                      |                          |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Dated: August 20, 2007 |   |  

/s/ Lee Wiskowski |
|                   |   |                      | Lee Wiskowski, President      |
|                   |   |                      | (principal executive officer) |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Hill, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 55]

—An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Fatricia Nunez, J., at plea under indictment 3679/08; Michael R. Sonberg, J., at plea under indictment 2172/10, and sentencing under both indictments), rendered on or about March 29, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Andrias, J.E, Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit 3.37

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                   CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF PREFERENCES
                                       OF
                   7.625% CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES T
                                       OF
                              PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.


                  The undersigned, Harvey Lenkin and David Goldberg, President
and Secretary, respectively, of PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., a California corporation
(the "Corporation"), do hereby certify:

                  FIRST: Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of
Section 401(c) of the California Corporations Code and the Articles of
Incorporation of the Corporation, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has
duly adopted the recitals and resolutions attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference authorizing and increasing the authorized
number of shares of the Corporation's 7.625% Cumulative Preferred Stock Series
T, from 6,000 to 6,086, for a net increase of 86 shares.

                  SECOND: The number of shares of the Corporation's 7.625%
Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series T, that are currently outstanding is 6,000.

                  We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California that the matters set forth in the foregoing certificate
are true and correct of our own knowledge.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
certificate on July 31, 2002.




                                                  /s/ Harvey Lenkin
                                                  -----------------
                                                  Harvey Lenkin
                                                  President


                                                  /s/ David Goldberg
                                                  ------------------
                                                  David Goldberg
                                                  Secretary

                                       1

<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT A

                      RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                       OF
                              PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.

                  INCREASING THE AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF SHARES OF
                   7.625% CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES T



RESOLVED: That, pursuant to the authority conferred in the Board of Directors by
Article III of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of this corporation and
the resolutions creating the corporation's 7.625% Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series T, the number of shares constituting the corporation's 7.625% Cumulative
Preferred Stock, Series T, is increased from 6,000 shares to 6,086 shares.

                                       2
#### Kenneth PIRKLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-17013.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 18, 2006.

Filed Oct. 30, 2006.

*846Nicholas F. Frey, Esq., Mark C. Wen-zel, Esq., Burton, Bartlett *&*Glogovac, Herb J. Santos, Esq., Law Firm of Herb Santos, Jr., Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Larry Panek, Carroll, Burdick & Mc-Donough, Walnut Creek, CA, William K. Skaggs, Esq., Benson Bertoldo Baker & Carter, Phillip V. Tiberi, Esq., Tuverson *&*Hillyard, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O’CONNOR,* Associate Justice, Retired, and GRABER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (Ret.), sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(a).

MEMORANDUM**

Plaintiff Kenneth Pirkle appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant National American Insurance Company of California on his insurance claim. We affirm.

The district court properly determined that Plaintiff cannot “stack” insurance coverages under his employer’s insurance policy, because that policy contains a valid “anti-stacking” provision under Nevada law. *See*Nev.Rev.Stat. 687B.145(1) (allowing insurers to prevent stacking by including an anti-stacking provision meeting three requirements). First, the anti-stacking provision is clear. *See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coatney,*118 Nev. 180, 42 P.3d 265, 266 (2002) (approving clarity of text nearly identical to this provision’s text). Second, the provision is prominently displayed in “bold-faced capital letters.” *Bove v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,*106 Nev. 682, 799 P.2d 1108, 1111 (1990). Third, the insurance premiums did not cover the same risk. The insurer introduced evidence that separate, equal premiums were paid per vehicle, the policy covered more drivers than insured vehicles, and the premiums therefore covered separate risks. Furthermore, the policy terms and premium payments are not disputed, and Plaintiff failed to introduce admissible evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact. *See Coatney,*42 P.3d at 268 (finding third requirement met, based in part on plaintiffs’ “fail[ure] to produce any evidence to refute” the insurer’s evidence).1

*847We need not and do not reach the district court’s alternative ground concerning classification of “class one” and “class two” insureds.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. We also note that, although Nevada courts *847have never addressed the issue, other jurisdictions have "almost unanimously” rejected stacking in the context of a commercial fleet insurance policy. *Lee v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,*70 Haw. 120, 763 P.2d 567, 570 n. 3 (1988) (citing numerous cases from other jurisdictions).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter B. BLAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10631.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 17, 2006.

Filed Oct. 25, 2006.

*818Joseph Tock, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Howard Trapp, Esq., Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BRUNETTI, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Peter Bias appeals his convictions of (1) carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, and (2) entering military property for the purpose of illegal hunting. Bias contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, *any*rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 641-42 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). Given the deferential standard of review, we affirm.

When confronted by law enforcement officers regarding a weapon concealed in his truck, Bias produced only a non-concealed weapon permit. While the government failed to produce any direct evidence that Bias did not have a concealed weapon permit, such as a definitive report from the Guam Police Department, the jury was presented with sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to conclude that Bias had only a non-concealed weapon permit. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to sustain a conviction. *United States v. Miller,*688 F.2d 652, 663 (9th Cir.1982).

As for the charge related to illegal hunting, a conservation officer testified that (1) Bias was carrying a rifle, (2) the trail Bias was cutting through the jungle led to á clearing frequented by game, and (3) the area contained many burn spots, which the officer testified suggested a technique used by hunters to attract game. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Bias entered the base for the purpose of illegal hunting.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
666 A.2d 161

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOEL C. BALSAM, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 6, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on September 5, 1995, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that JOEL C. BALSAM of NEW PROVIDENCE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1973, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months for violation of *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4 (failure to communicate), *RPC*1.16(b) (improper withdrawal from representation), *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with the disciplinary authorities), and for failure to comply with the terms of the Order of this Court dated September 9, 1992;

*551And the Disciplinary Review Board further concluding that respondent should be required to provide proof that during the period of his suspension from practice he is attending meetings of Alcoholic Anonymous and that prior to reinstatement respondent should be required to submit proof that he is abstaining from the use of alcohol;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOEL C. BALSAM is hereby suspended from practice for a period of six months, effective November 29, 1995, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is *farther*

ORDERED that respondent shall on a regular basis attend meetings of Alcoholic Anonymous during the period of suspension and provide proof thereof; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice respondent shall provide proof that he is abstaining from the use of alcohol; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
Addendum to Employment Agreement between the Company and Dean Personne



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 BETWEEN 
 DEAN PERSONNE AND PEAK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 
 Whereas, the parties entered into an
employment agreement dated February 15, 2005, amended as of July 7, 2005, March 23, 2006 and August 25, 2006 (hereinafter the “Agreement”); and 
 Whereas, the parties desire to amend paragraph 2.2 of the Agreement; 
 Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows: 
 Paragraph 2.2 of the Agreement is deleted and the following
substituted in lieu thereof: “Effective May 14, 2007 and after Employee’s signature below, Employee shall be paid a monthly salary of US$27,500 plus a 13th month bonus of one month’s pay if employee is employed by the Company on
the date the Company shall elect to pay 13th month bonuses in Hong Kong. In the first year, any such bonus shall be prorated based on a fraction the numerator of which is the number of days of employment by the Company during the prior 365 days and
the denominator of which is 365.” 
 In witness whereof, the parties have executed this addendum on the later to occur of May 14,
2007 (the effective date) or the last date signed below. 
  

					
	PEAK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	 		 	DEAN PERSONNE
			
	/s/ John Supan	 		 	/s/ Dean Personne
	By: John Supan, Chief Financial Officer	 		 	
			
	30 May 2007	 		 	30 May 2007
	Date:	 		 	Date:
wilshire logo
              Wilshire
      Credit Corporation
                Payments
                P.O. Box
      30040; Los Angeles, CA 90030-0040
                or P.O. Box
      650314; Dallas, TX 75265-0314
 Exhibit T
                CorrespondenceP.O. Box 8517; Portland, OR
      97207-8517Phone(503) 952-7947March 26,
    2008
                (888) 502-0100Fax(503)
      952-7476Web Sitewww.wfsg.com
 LaSalle
Bank NA
 135 S.
LaSalle Street
 IL4-135-15-11
 Chicago,
IL 60603
 Attn:
RMBS Administration
 Merrill
Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc
 250 Vesey
Street
 4 World
Financial Center, 10th Floor
 New York,
NY 10080
 Attn:
Ketan Parekh
 Re:         Sarbanes-Oxley
Certification
 (Wilshire
Pool 1504) Pooling & Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2007 between
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., Depositor, Wilshire Credit Corporation,
Servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, Trustee for the Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
2007-SD1.
 
  I, Ken
Frye, Senior Vice President, Loan Servicing, certify that:
  1.  I, or
persons under my supervision, have reviewed the 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 Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., Depositor
(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
  2.  Based on
my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports 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 by 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; and
  5.  All of
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for ABS 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 Trustee, LaSalle
Bank National Association, an unaffiliated party.
 
 
 
 Wilshire
Credit Corporation, as Servicer
  By:/s/
Ken Frye
 Name: Ken
Frye
 Title:
Senior Vice President Loan Servicing
 (Senior
Officer in charge of the servicing function of the
servicer)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51434

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES FLORES-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-538-1

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

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Flores-Martinez (“Flores”) appeals from his 30-month

prison sentence, following his guilty-plea conviction of

illegally reentering the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b). Flores raises arguments that are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. 

Flores also concedes that his unpreserved challenge to his
No. 04-51434

-2-

sentence under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), is

meritless, because he cannot show that his “substantial rights”

were affected under the standard set forth in United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert.

filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). 

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,

and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 17, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00506

- CV

Beaumont Independent School District, Appellant

v.

Texas Education Agency; Michael L. Williams, in his Offic ial Capacity as

Commissioner of Edu cation; and Karen Neild, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GO ODWIN

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on July 24, 2014. Beaumont

Independent School District has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the

motion, the Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the

motion and dismisses the appeal

. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in

this Court and the court below.
**[ F i f t h   T h i r d   B a n k   L o g o ]****Servicer Compliance Statement**I, Norman Holmes, certify to the "Depositor", and its officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification. The loans covered by this certification are set forth in JPALT 2006-A7, JPALT 2007-Al and WMLT 2007 A, that: I. I have reviewed the servicer's activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;   2, Based on my knowledge, based on such review, the servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and status thereof Date: February 21, 2008  Signature: /s/ Norman Holmes  Name: Norman Holmes  Title: Assistant Vice President Exhibit to Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing JPALT 2006-A7 JPALT 2007-Al WMLT 2007A
#### Kendall C. WATSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. WELLS, Officer, Riverside Regional Jail; C. Jeffries, Food Service Supervisor, Riverside Regional Jail; Darnley R. Hodge, Superintendent, Riverside Regional Jail, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-6365.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 27, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 17, 2006.

Kendall C. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Kendall C. Watson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion to produce court records and trial transcripts, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Watson v. Wells,*No. l:06-cv-00038-JCC (E.D.Va. Feb. 15, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Paul Siemucha, Respondent, v Robert D. Garrison et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[974 NYS2d 861]

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered June 6, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendants to set aside a jury verdict.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*155 AD2d 435 [1989]; *see also*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41327 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUSTAVO CAVAZOS-LEDESMA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-97-CR-177-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gustavo Cavazos-Ledesma appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. His sole argument is that the factual basis for his guilty plea is insufficient because there was no mention at his rearraignment of an arrest or a warrant of deportation issued prior to the deportation. In 1996, § 1326(a) was amended, and the word “arrested” was removed. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) § 308(d)(4)(J)(i)(I), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. TheNo. 97-41327 -2- amendments became effective prior to the offense conduct. See id . at §§ 303(b)(1), 309(a). The argument therefore lacks merit. AFFIRMED.