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





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL


OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Hugh
Downing, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Suncross Exploration Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Suncross Exploration Corporation.





Dated:
March 20, 2008





By:         
/s/ Hugh
Downing


Hugh
Downing


Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4007 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4007

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to identify opportunities to increase the surface flows of the 
Rio Grande, Canadian, and Pecos Rivers in the State of New Mexico, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2006

 Mr. Domenici introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to identify opportunities to increase the surface flows of the 
Rio Grande, Canadian, and Pecos Rivers in the State of New Mexico, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``New Mexico Rivers Feasibility 
Studies Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. RIO GRANDE, CANADIAN, AND PECOS RIVERS FEASIBILITY STUDY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Commissioner of Reclamation (referred to in this Act as the 
``Secretary''), in coordination with the State of New Mexico, shall, in 
accordance with this Act and any other applicable law, conduct 
feasibility studies to identify opportunities to increase the surface 
flows of the Rio Grande, Canadian, and Pecos Rivers in the State of New 
Mexico.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the 
House of Representatives a report that describes the results of the 
feasibility studies conducted under subsection (a).
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this Act $3,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      31, 2009 | /s/      Richard Ivanovick   |
|---------------------|------------------------------|
|                | Richard      Ivanovick       |
|                | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
#### RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andrea NEFF, an individual, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-17301.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 17, 2009.

Filed May 13, 2009.

Steven James Gross, Michael Christopher Grubbs, Esquire, Steven Plitt, Kunz Plitt Hyland Demlong & Kleifield, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Joseph Jakubczyk, Esquire, Jakub-czyk & Saverino PC, Phoenix, AZ, Charles S. Limandri, Esquire, Law Offices of Charles S. Limandri, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: NOONAN, ARCHER,* and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

RLI Insurance Company’s (“RLI”) commercial umbrella policy includes a following form endorsement entitled “AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY FOLLOWING FORM.” This endorsement covers “liability for bodily injury or property damage [that] is covered by valid and collectible underlying insurance as described in the schedule of underlying insurance ... for such hazards for which coverage is afforded under said underlying insurance.” We agree with the district court that in this case RLI’s umbrella policy was limited to the liability of the insured and the following form endorsement did not incorporate the underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage from the Coregis policy. Contrary to Neffs argument, the following form here serves only to ensure that RLI would be the excess insurer for the liability of the insured.1

Additionally, the Arizona statutes treat umbrella policies differently from underlying insurance policies. Arizona Statute 20-259.01(L) expressly excepts umbrella policies from the requirement that the insurer make UIM available to the insured. This action by the Arizona legislature suggests that an umbrella policy should not be presumed to include UIM coverage.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Although the district court vacated judgment in favor of RLI with respect to the issue of coverage and did not reenter judgment on that issue, the court and the parties treated that judgment as dispositive of the coverage issue. We treat the initial judgment in favor of RLI on coverage as being merged into the final judgment for purposes of a final appeal-able order.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41313 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. GELDER ARQUET A

- REGALADO ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14

- CR

- 544

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gelder Arquet a
Regalado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Uni ted States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arqueta

- Regalado h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41313 Document: 00513216263 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2015No. 14

- 41313

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-41313 Document: 00513216263 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2015
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30549.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 30, 2006.

Michael Dion, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Tessa M. Gorman, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judith M. Mandel, Esq., Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Matthews appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit kidnaping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. *849§ 1201(a)(1) and (c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Matthews contends that the district court did not have jurisdiction because, when he pleaded guilty, he did not admit to taking a “substantial step” toward transporting the victim across state lines. Count 1 of the indictment specifically charged that on August 17, 2004, Matthews and a codefendant met in the Portland, Oregon, area; rented a room at a hotel in Portland; drove to the victim’s home in Vancouver, Washington; and then used a duplicate key they had made to surreptitiously enter the victim’s home during the early morning hours of August 18, 2004. Matthews pleaded guilty to count 1 of the indictment. This guilty plea thus supplies abundant evidence of overt acts on the part of both him and his codefendant to sustain the charge of conspiracy to commit kidnaping.

Matthews also contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his ease because the victim was not transported over state lines. But actual transportation is not a requirement for the crime of conspiracy, and even if it were, a challenge to a jurisdictional element does not jeopardize a district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. *See United States v. Ratigan,*351 F.3d 957, 963-65 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Williams, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 56]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied.

Present—Smith, J.E, Centra, Fahey, Carni and Sconiers, JJ
EX-34.14
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 1500
191 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30303-1943
USA

Tel: +1 404 220 1500
www.deloitte.com


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors of
LNR Partners Inc.
Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that LNR Partners Inc. (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities
transactions for which the Asserting Party served as special servicer, that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and that were registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
229.1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(C), (3)(i)(D), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v),
(4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii) and (4)(xv), which management
has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company
with respect to the Platform. Management 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 commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 22, 2008


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
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 NT Media Corp. of California,  Inc.
(the  "Registrant")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Ali Moussavi,  Principal  Executive  Officer and Acting Principal
Financial  Officer  of the  Registrant,  certify  to the  best of my  knowledge,
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 and 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
     Registrant.



                                  /S/ ALI MOUSSAVI
                                  --------------------------------------
Dated:  November 16, 2007         Ali Moussavi
                                  Principal Executive Officer and Acting
                                  Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1





Hyperion Energy,  Inc.


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


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)




In connection with the annual report of Hyperion Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey J. Raymond, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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





2.
the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: March 31,  2011
By:
/s/ John P. MessinaJohn P. Messina

President
EXHIBIT 23.1 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 No. 333-144077 and No. 333-145401) pertaining to the 2007 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, and 2002 Stock Plan of Data Domain, Inc. of our report dated February 29, 2008, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedule of Data Domain, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Jose,California 

February 28, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4105 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4105

  To authorize the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
               Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
               Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.

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

SECTION 1. MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO PROJECT.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall carry out the 
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf 
of Mexico, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
subject to the conditions, described in the Reports of the Chief of 
Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of 
$841,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $546,300,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $294,800,000.
    (b) Operations and Maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma Navigation Canal 
lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features of 
the project described in subsection (a) that provide for inland 
waterway transportation shall be a Federal responsibility, in 
accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31

                                                        [LOGO] imbIndymacBank(R)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Blair Abernathy, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this 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 Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A3 (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.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) 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 parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company and Newport Management Corporation.

Date: March 26, 2008



/s/ Blair Abernathy
-----------------------
Blair Abernathy
Executive Vice President
(Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael J. Brown, Appellant.

Submitted March 9, 2009;

decided March 31, 2009

*777Motion to vacate this Court’s February 10, 2009 preclusion order granted.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4044 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2006 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To clarify the treatment of certain charitable contributions 

under title 11, United States Code. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Religious Liberty and 

5 Charitable Donation Clarification Act of 2006’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

S 4044 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS IN 

2 BANKRUPTCY. 

3 Section 1325(b)(3) of title 11, United States Code, 

4 is amended by inserting ‘‘, other than subparagraph 

5 (A)(ii) of paragraph (2),’’ after ‘‘paragraph (2)’’. 

Passed the Senate September 30 (legislative day, 

September 29), 2006. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

139626

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139626 COA: 284565 Wayne CC: 07-004709-01-FC JESUS RUIZ HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors of Boise Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-158737 and 333-150563) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (Nos.333-157881 and 333-155595) on Form S-3 of Boise Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Boise Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income(loss), stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which report appears in theDecember 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Boise Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Boise, Idaho 

February 25, 2010