alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION





Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Robert A. Doak,  President,  CEO,  and  Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer of
Mountains West Exploration, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:

1. The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10QSB of the Company  for the period  ended
March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (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:  April 22, 2004           Officer:   Robert A. Doak

                                        Name:       /s/ Robert A. Doak
                                                    ----------------------------
                                        Position:  President, CEO
Exhibit
32.1
 
 Certification
of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of BLS Media, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Brittany Prager, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best
of her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
 
 (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
BLS Media, Inc., and will be retained by BLS Media, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/ Brittany
      PragerBrittany
      PragerChief
      Executive OfficerMay 5 , 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4119 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4119

To clarify the tax treatment of certain payments made to homeowners by 
   the Louisiana Recovery Authority and the Mississippi Development 
                               Authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 8, 2006

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify the tax treatment of certain payments made to homeowners by 
   the Louisiana Recovery Authority and the Mississippi Development 
                               Authority.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE TO 
              HOMEOWNERS BY THE LOUISIANA RECOVERY AUTHORITY AND THE 
              MISSISSIPPI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

    For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a taxpayer--
            (1) receives any amount during the taxable year from the 
        Louisiana Recovery Authority or the Mississippi Development 
        Authority for the repair or reconstruction of such taxpayer's 
        primary residence due to damage sustained as the result of 
        hurricanes occurring during 2005, and
            (2) in any preceding taxable year claimed a casualty loss 
        deduction under section 165 of such Code with respect to such 
        damage,
such amount shall be disregarded in determining the allowable portion 
of such casualty loss deduction and so much of such amount as does not 
exceed such casualty loss deduction shall be disregarded in determining 
the taxpayer's basis in such residence.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00618]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the optional ``peg'' rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This 
rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for 
maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be 
used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. 
This rate will be 2.625 (2\5/8\) percent for the January-March quarter 
of FY 2015.
    Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for 
any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the 
cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New 
York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted 
by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate 
will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given 
State.

Linda S. Rusche,
Director, Office of Financial Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015-00618 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
[914 NE2d 1005, 886 NYS2d 88]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermar McDaniel, Appellant.

Decided September 1, 2009

*752APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau,*New York City *(Arthur H. Hopkirk*and *Steven Banks*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney,*Bronx *(Kayonia L. Whetstone*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Because defense counsel’s decision not to seek dismissal of the robbery in the first degree charge for insufficient evidence would not have resulted in a dismissal of that charge *(see People v Lopez,*73 NY2d 214, 219-220 [1989]; *People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374, 380-381 [1983]), defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is meritless. Furthermore, the attorney’s conduct did not consist of “ ‘egregious and prejudicial’ error such that defendant did not receive a fair trial” *(People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998], citing *People v Flores,*84 NY2d 184, 188-189 [1994]), but rather “viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal[s] that the attorney provided meaningful representation” *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
EX-35.2
(logo) OCWEN



ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

March 7, 2008


RE: ACE 2007-SL1


For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period"), Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC ("OLS") furnishes this annual servicer compliance statement
pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, indicating its compliance with the
servicing standards of the Securities & Exchange Commission as set forth in
Regulation AB, 17 CFR Section 229.1100, et seq., ("Regulation AB"). In this
regard, I make the following representations, which are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief in all material respects.

1. A review of the servicing activities of OLS during the Reporting Period, and
   of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
   February 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), has been performed under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on this review, OLS has fulfilled all of
   its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
   Reporting Period.


By: /s/ Ronald M. Faris
Name: Ronald M. Faris
Title: President



Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
1661 Worthington Road Suite 100
Centrepark West
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Exhibit 32.2





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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, I, Rafiq A. Sayed,, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 the undersigned's 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.



Date:  June 29, 2005

/s/ Rafiq A. Sayed



Rafiq A. Sayed



Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Martin G. Paravato, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IRIS International,Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain 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 thisannual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is beingprepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such valuation.

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially effect the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 14, 2004
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3672 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear not covering the ankle 

with coated or laminated textile fabrics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2006 

Mr. CARPER (for himself and Mr. GREGG) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear not 

covering the ankle with coated or laminated textile fabrics. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR NOT COVERING THE 

4 ANKLE WITH COATED OR LAMINATED TEX5 TILE FABRICS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3672 IS 

‘‘ 9902.64.10 Men’s footwear, except vulcanized footwear and footwear with waterproof molded 

bottoms, including bottoms 

comprising an outer sole and 

all or part of the upper, valued over $20/pair, not covering the ankle, designed to 

be worn in lieu of, but not 

over, other footwear as a 

protection against water, oil, 

grease or chemicals or cold 

or inclement weather where 

such protection includes protection against water that is 

imparted by the use of a 

coated or laminated textile 

fabric (provided in subheading 6404.19.20) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
**Exhibit 15**

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders ofSears, Roebuck and Co.

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interimcondensed consolidated financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the13-week periods ended March 30, 2002 and March 31, 2001, as indicated in ourreport dated May 1, 2002; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed noopinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 13-week period ended March 30, 2002, isincorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345,333-8141, 333-38131, and 333-52056 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; RegistrationStatement Nos. 33-58139, 33-64215, 33-9817, 333-30879 and 333-62847 of Sears,Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration Statement Nos.33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuckand Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; Registration Statement Nos. 33-57205,333-11973, 333-53149, 333-92501, and 333-56272 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and theSears 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing Fundof Sears Employees and the Sears 401(k) Profiit Sharing Plan); RegistrationStatement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp; andRegistration Statement No. 333-72514 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2001Broad-Based Stock Option Plan.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, IllinoisMay 1, 2002
#### George Karfunkel, Appellant-Respondent, v Philip S. Sassower, Respondent-Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 85]

*460Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered September 27, 2012, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 13, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action seeking damages for investment fraud, plaintiff was on notice that the transaction orally agreed to would not be structured as discussed based on emails and a draft agreement provided to him. Despite being on notice, plaintiff failed to inquire about the specifics of the transaction or to conduct due diligence. This failure precludes his claim of justifiable reliance on defendant’s alleged oral representations as a matter of law (see *Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V.,*17 NY3d 269, 279 [2011]; *HSH Nordbank AG v UBS AG,*95 AD3d 185, 194-195 [1st Dept 2012]). In view of the foregoing, we need not address the contentions regarding proof of scienter or defendant’s cross appeal.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cramer,
Inc. (the "Issuer") for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, I, Gregory Coward,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

         (1)      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the
                  quarter ended June 30, 2002, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form
                  10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarter ended June 30, 2002,
                  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
                  condition and results of operations of the Issuer for and as
                  of the end of such quarter.


                                     By  /s/ Gregory Coward
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                         Gregory Coward
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 20, 2002
#### Frederick R. Hawkes, Respondent, v Bonnie M. Hawkes, Appellant.

Submitted August 10, 2009;

decided October 22, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 1436.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order dismissing the appeal from the order of Supreme Court that, among other things, denied appellant’s motion to *825reopen, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.

Judge Pigott taking no part.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ERICA URECH, *

* No. 19-642V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: May 4, 2021

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine; 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * chronic inflammatory demyelinating

* polyneuropathy (“CIDP”).

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner;

Emilie Williams, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On May 4, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition 

for compensation filed by Erica Urech on April 30, 2019. Petitioner alleged that 

the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 8, 2016, which is 

contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused 

her to suffer from chronic demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Petitioner 

further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six 

months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a 

civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from CIDP

or any other injury. 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $95,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that 

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached 

stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3748

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Jose Ramon Bustillos, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 2, 2001 Filed: July 6, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Following a conditional guilty plea to conspiring to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846, Jose Ramon Bustillos challenges the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. Having carefully reviewed the record, including the testimony presented atthe suppression hearing, we agree with the district court that the traffic stop was lawful, given that the officer involved had reason to believe the car that appellant was-2-

driving was unregistered. We also agree that appellant was not detained for an unreasonable length of time after the stop. See United States v. Peltier , 217 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 2000) (traffic stop was lawful where vehicle had no license plate and tintedwindows prevented deputy from seeing temporary registration application); United States v. Allegree , 175 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir.) (officer reasonably believed, althoughmistakenly, that vehicle violated operating statutes and thus was entitled to stop car; because officer’s suspicions were aroused during traffic stop, he was entitled to expand scope of questioning and subsequent voluntary consent to search was valid), cert. denied 528 U.S. 958 (1999); United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency , 182 F.3d 643, 647 (8th Cir. 1999) (following valid traffic stop, officer may detain motorist while completing routine but time-consuming tasks, such as computerized checks of vehicle’s registration, driver’s license, and criminal history), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1161 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.