alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Cesar M. Garcia, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 9, 2006



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|/s/ CESAR M. GARCIA                    
|Cesar M. Garcia Chief Executive
Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Ace. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH****1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii)****of  REGULATION  AB  SERVICING  CRITERIA****FOR  THE  REPORTING  PERIOD****JANUARY 1, 2007 TO DECEMBER 31, 2007**American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.") (collectively, the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow serv i c i n g  activities it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform Transactions"). The Asser ting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of noncompliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Specifically, the Asserting Party did not have, during the Reporting Period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the information with respect t o the Platform Transactions necessary to determine compliance with 1122(d)(4)(xii).The Asserting Party has concluded that, with the exception of the aforementioned material instance of noncompliance, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material resp ects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance  with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period. **American Security Insurance Company Standard Guaranty Insurance Company TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.**(formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.") /s/ John Frobose By: John Frobose Senior Vice President Date: February 19, 2008
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2515

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Latoya Rose Hourston, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2004

Filed: June 10, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in this case, vacated

our judgment, and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See Hourston v. United States, 125 S. Ct.

989 (2005), granting cert. and vacating the judgment in United States v. Hourston,

No. 03-2515, 2004 WL 960034 (8th Cir. May 5, 2004) (unpublished per curiam). In

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 749-51, the Court held that sentence enhancements based solely

on facts found by a court under mandatory federal sentencing guidelines violate the

sixth amendment, which the Court then remedied by making the sentencing

guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, id. at 764.
1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

We have examined the relevant record and conclude that the defendant, Latoya

Hourston, did not preserve a Booker issue, and that she is not entitled to plain-error

relief because she cannot show that her substantial rights were affected, see United

States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550-53 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We therefore

conclude that Booker did not affect our previous opinion in this case. Accordingly

we reinstate our prior opinion and again affirm the sentence imposed by the district

court.1

______________________________
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**THETRUSTEE***

**OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2022 andfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ross C. Durr, Senior Vice President and Mineral Interest Director of PNC Bank, National Association, on behalf of PNC Bank, National Association, theTrustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”),* not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 1 to the Trust’s financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, FinancialStatements of Royalty Trusts, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Trust. 

 

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

ASTRUSTEE OF THE

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
By: 
/s/ Ross C. Durr
Name: Ross C. Durr, J.D., RPLTitle: 
Senior Vice President

Mineral InterestDirector
Date: August 15, 2022
 
*
The Trust has no executive officers. 
**
#### In the Matter of R. Children. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Ishwardat R., Appellant, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 16, 2009;

decided May 5, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 515

To amend title 32, United States Code, to increase the maximum Federal 

share of the costs of State programs under the National Guard Youth 

Challenge Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 3, 2005

Mr. BYRD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 32, United States Code, to increase the 

maximum Federal share of the costs of State programs 

under the National Guard Youth Challenge Program, 

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE PROGRAMS 

4 UNDER THE NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHAL5 LENGE PROGRAM. 

6 (a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS OF STATE

7 PROGRAMS.—Section 509(d) of title 32, United States 
2

•S 515 IS 

1 Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 

2 (4) and inserting the following new paragraphs: 

3 ‘‘(1) for fiscal year 2006, 65 percent of the 

4 costs of operating the State program during that fis5 cal year; 

6 ‘‘(2) for fiscal year 2007, 70 percent of the 

7 costs of operating the State program during that fis8 cal year; and 

9 ‘‘(3) for fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent 

10 fiscal year, 75 percent of the costs of operating the 

11 State program during that fiscal year.’’. 

12 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

13 hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department 

14 of Defense for fiscal year 2006, $83,900,000 for the Na15 tional Guard Youth Challenge Program under section 509 

16 of title 32, United States Code.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 23, 2009 

s0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

137658 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137658 

 COA: 286842 

Wayne CC: 00-011514 

LACY CHISOLM, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 1, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The application is also 

subject to dismissal because the defendant’s application for leave to appeal was not filed 

with the Court of Appeals within twelve months of the March 5, 2007 order of the circuit 

court as required by MCR 7.205(F)(3).
#### Rockmore *v.*Cullen & Newman.

Under the act of September 26th, 1883, when the plaintiff in a suit upon an open account in a justice’s court has duly proved his account by written affidavit, the introduction of that affidavit in evidence to the jury on the trial of an appeal taken by the defendant, is conclusive upon the right of the plaintiff to recover, unless the defendant has filed his written affidavit denying the justice- and fairness of the whole or some part of the account. An unsworn plea will not suffice as a substitute for the affidavit required of the defendant by the statute, nor will a sworn plea unless the oath thereto be in writing. *Judgment affirmed.*

July 23, 1894.

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Hutchins. Walton superior court. August term, .1893.

The suit was on an open account for goods sold. No plea was filed nor appearance made by defendant at the .return term, and judgment was rendered’ against him. . He appealed to a jury, who found for the plaintiffs. By petition for *certiorari*defendant alleged that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence; and that the court-i erred in refusing to allow him to file his plea, and to-swear to the same or to testify in his own behalf. It appeared from the answer of the justice, that on the trial plaintiff introduced the account sued on (sworn to) and closed; that defendant offered to introduce some of , the goods bought, and himself to testify, to which plaintiffs objected on the ground that no plea had been filed , at the first term, and none at this term under oath as , required by law; and that defendant offered to swear to *649the plea orally, without attaching affidavit, an objection to which was sustained.

Charles H. Brand, for plaintiff in error.

Napier & Cos, *contra.*
EX-35.9
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007 (the "Pooling and
Servicing Agreement" ), by and among Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Inc.,
as Depositor, Bank of America, National Association, as Master Servicer, LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Trustee and REMIC Administrator and LNR Partners,
Inc., as Special Servicer solely with respect to the Forest Hills Corporate
Center Whole Loan, Skyline Portfolio Pari Passu Whole Loan, Pacific Shores Pari
Passu Whole Loan, 575 Lexington Avenue Pari Passu Whole Loan, and the Solana
Pari Passu Whole Loan

BACM 2007-1


I, Susan K. Chapman, a Vice President of LNR Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, on behalf of the Special Servicer and
not in my individual capacity, hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed the activities performed by the Special Servicer under the
   Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the period ending the end of the
   fiscal year 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and the Special Servicer's
   performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my
   supervision; and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has
   fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all
   material respects throughout the Reporting Period.


LNR PARTNERS, INC.


By: /s/ Susan K. Chapman
Susan K. Chapman
Vice President
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: VICTORY ROCK TEXAS, LLC,

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-16-00349-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Victory Rock Texas, L.L.C., has filed a mandamus petition asking that we issue 

the writ of mandamus against the Honorable Robert E. Cadena, Judge of the 83rd District Court 

of Pecos County, Texas, ordering Respondent to vacate an order which denied in part and 

granted in part Relator’s Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion to Compel Arbitration, and: 

(1) grant Relator’s Motion to Dismiss; or (2), alternatively, grant its Motion to Compel 

Arbitration as to all claims between Relator and the Real Party in Interest, Triple S Materials.

Relator has also filed a motion for emergency relief asking that we stay all proceedings in the 

trial court pending resolution of the mandamus. We deny both the motion for emergency relief 

and the petition for writ of mandamus.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must meet two requirements. First, 

the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance

Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate 
- 2 -

that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 136. Based on the record before us, we 

conclude that Relator has failed to establish it is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we 

deny the motion for emergency relief and the petition for writ of mandamus.

January 11, 2017

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11489]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel, Review of R21, R03 and R34 
applications.
    Date: June 15, 2009.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, DEA/SRB, Bethesda, MD 
20892. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Marilyn Moore-Hoon, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 676, Bethesda, MD 
20892-4878. 301-594-4861. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1acaeaeb3a4aca0b381afa8a5a2b3efafa8a9efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0cdcfcfd2c5cdc1d2e0cec9c4c3d28ecec9c88ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel, Review F31s, F32s, K08.
    Date: June 23, 2009.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Raj K. Krishnaraju, Ph.D., MS, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Inst of Dental & 
Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Dr. 
Rm. 4AN 32J, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-4864. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#365d5d445f455e585776585f52554418585f5e18515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f24243d263c27212e0f21262b2c3d6121262761282039">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 11, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-11489 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11438]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than June 1, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. The Pletsch Family which consists of Ronald L. Pletsch, 
individually and as trustee of the Robert L. Pletsch Trust and Robert 
L. Pletsch FBO Trust; Sharon L. Johnson, individually and as trustee of 
the Sharon L. Johnson FBO Trust; and Marilyn A. Pletsch, all of McNabb, 
Illinois; and Roger A. Pletsch, Lostant, Illinois; as a group acting in 
concert to retain control Tonica Bancorp, Inc., Tonica, Illinois, and 
thereby indirectly retain control of Illini State Bank, Oglesby, 
Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. James M. Smith, Jackson, Tennessee; to acquire voting shares of 
Tennessee Central Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of Community South Bank, both of Parsons, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 12, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-11438 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAIDEE JOY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-75009

Tax Ct. No. 878-07L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Haidee Joy appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision after a trial

upholding the IRS Office of Appeals’ determination sustaining a tax lien for her

unpaid federal income taxes for years 1992, 1993, and 1995. She also appeals

from the Tax Court’s decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction her challenges

FILED

JUN 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-75009

concerning years 1987 through 1990, and concerning the proposed levy action for

years 1992, 1993, and 1995. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). 

We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual

findings. Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v. Comm’r, 425 F.3d 1203, 1211 (9th

Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to Joy’s challenges concerning years

1987 through 1990, because there was no notice of determination for these years. 

See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); T.C. R. 330(b). The Tax Court also

properly granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as

to Joy’s challenges to the proposed levy action for years 1992, 1993, and 1995,

because the Office of Appeals’ decision addressing the equivalent hearing was not

appealable. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(i)(2) Q&A I6.

Contrary to Joy’s contention, the statute of limitations did not bar collection

of the unpaid tax liabilities for years 1992, 1993, and 1995, because Joy agreed to

extend the statute of limitations in conjunction with the execution of an installment

agreement. See 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a)(2)(A). Further, the Tax Court did not clearly

err by finding that the tax liabilities were individual income tax liabilities rather

than employer tax liabilities, as reflected in the Form 900 Waiver that Joy signed,
3 08-75009

and Joy failed to present any contrary evidence.

We do not consider issues that Joy failed to raise in the collection due

process hearing. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(f)(2) Q&A F3.

AFFIRMED.