alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<SEQUENCE>13

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                        /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                        -------------------
Date: May 10, 2006
                                        David A. Nelson,
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                        Accounting Officer
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eonorsbla Joe Fultz 

0ount.y Attorney 

Gr5.mea County 

Anderson, Texas 

Dsnr Sir: Opinion No. O-51 

Ke rsoriYsd gc:ur 

latlng to tha sbor 

latter ae follows: 

his iir0 lnts 

Grlmss County 

ths holdars o 

on this tract of 

dared the proparty 

Tamplsman 1Eatata 

holuar 0r a iire 

lntarast in &l sat,;ts is primarily rsaponalbia for the ~ 
Honorable Joe Pultx, Page 2 

payment of taxes that aocwo sgainat the property during 

the 43xiateAos 0r the lir0 Intereat. Riohard8OA ~a. YoClorkoy, 

261. S. Yi. 801, 276 6. iFi, 680. Sea ala0 Sargrent vs. sargrant, 

15 8. r.. (2d) 589, 116 Texas 343. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GSSNZRAL O? TEXAS 

By Lb 

Lo8 Shoptar 

Arairtent
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shantelle Scruggs, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 111]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered June 17, 2009, convicting her of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction of murder in the second degree because the People failed to prove the element of intent to kill is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable *967to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Pickens,*60 AD3d 699, 701 [2009]; *People v Tigner,*51 AD3d 1045 [2008]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant contends that the medical examiner improperly testified that the manner of death was a homicide. However, because the defendant failed to object to this testimony, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, any error in this regard was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; *People v Heath,*49 AD3d 970, 973 [2008]; *People v James,*123 AD2d 644, 645 [1986]).

During the course of cross-examination of the defendant, the prosecutor improperly introduced extrinsic evidence of a prior bad act to impeach her credibility *(see People v Schwartzman,*24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969], *cert denied*396 US 846 [1969]). However, because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction, that error also was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d at 242).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Austin, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Mohamed Kadry, Respondent.

Submitted November 16, 2009;

decided December 17, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 856.

Motion to dismiss the appeal herein granted and appeal dismissed without prejudice to a motion by the People to reinstate the appeal should defendant return to this Court’s jurisdiction *(see People v Diaz,*7 NY3d 831 [2006]).
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify to WaMu AssetAcceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2007 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank National Association,as Trustee, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee,  the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2007-2 Trustfor the 2007 fiscal year  (the“Relevant Year”):

1.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under mysupervision.

2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Relevant Year.

Dated as of March 1, 2008.

 
| /s/ H. John BerensName:  H. John BerensTitle:    Senior Vice President |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.V.1

                             AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
                          EL PASO PRODUCTION COMPANIES
                            LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

      Pursuant to Section 10.1 of the El Paso Production Companies Long-Term
Incentive Plan, effective as of January 1, 2003, as amended (the "Plan"), the
Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective December 31, 2003:

      WHEREAS, the Management Committee under the Plan has determined it is in
the best interests of the Company to terminate the Plan.

      NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby terminated effective as of the end of
the current Performance Period, or December 31, 2003. The termination of the
Plan does not affect any awards due to the Participants under the Plan prior to
the effective date of this amendment and any awards due to the Participants
under the Plan shall be paid in accordance with Section 6.5 of the Plan as soon
as reasonably possible after the Company's Performance Ranking Position is
compared to the Performance Ranking Position of the Performance Peer Group for
the plan year.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be duly
executed on this 31st day of December, 2003.

                                                EL PASO PRODUCTION COMPANY

                                                By: /s/ SUSAN B. ORTENSTONE
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Susan B. Ortenstone
                                                    Senior Vice President,
                                                    Human Resources

Attest:

  /s/ DAVID L. SIDDALL
------------------------
  Corporate Secretary
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ADAM LOPICCOLO, :

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

 :

 v. : NO. 10-CV-3131

:

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, :

et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2011, upon consideration

of the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(2), (3), and (6) of Defendants American University,

the Board of Trustees of American University, and Robert Acunto

(Doc. No. 9), Plaintiff’s response in opposition thereto (Docs.

Nos. 15, 17), and the Defendants’ reply in further support

thereof (Doc. No. 20), as well as Defendant Mark Cody’s Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction,

Improper Venue and for Failing to State a Claim for Which Relief

Can Be Granted (Doc. No. 10), Plaintiff’s response in opposition

thereto (Docs. Nos. 16, 18), and Defendant Cody’s reply in

further support thereof (Doc. No. 19), and for the reasons set

forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that

the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED but that, venue being improper

in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the case is TRANSFERRED
to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

BY THE COURT:

s/J. Curtis Joyner 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 5.1


       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form F-10 of our
report dated March 12, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation and its subsidiaries. We also consent to the use
in this Registration Statement of our Comments by Independent Certified Public
Accountants for United States Readers on Differences Between Canadian and United
States Reporting Standards, dated April 26, 2004.

We also consent to the references to us under the headings "Auditors, Transfer
Agent and Registrar" and "Experts" in such Registration Statement.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Tampa, Florida
October 4, 2004
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, J. Lance Franke, certify that:          1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filedin respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLM Student Loan Trust 2007-4 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”);          2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;          3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;          4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required under this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement andadministration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and          5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas, as indenture trustee.Date: March 26, 2008   /s/ J. LANCE FRANKE J. Lance Franke  Vice President  (Senior Securitization Officer)  SLM Funding LLC
EXHIBIT 32.2





STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sam H. Lindsey, Jr., chief accounting officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-K/A Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Sam H. Lindsey, Jr.,


Sam H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Accounting Officer


Dated: June 15, 2011
EX-35.3
(logo) Homecomings Financial
A GMAC Company

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)
Homecomings Financial, LLC
DBALT 2007-OA1 (the "Issuing Entity")

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer")does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
   Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under
   the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement
   in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
17th day of March 2008.

By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title:    Managing Director
#### Samantha Clark, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Joseph Ray, an Infant, Respondent-Appellant, v Joshua Gotthart et al., Defendants, and Lynda Gotthart, Appellant-Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 837]

— Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R. Glownia, J.), entered October 3, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendant Lynda Gotthart for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against her and denied the cross motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on the complaint.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on September 24, 2013,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Sloud, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene Sokolov , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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, as amended; and

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



|Date:  March 24, 2009 | By: /s/ Gene SokolovGene Sokolov
Chairman, President Chief Executive Officer
(Principle Executive Officer)
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7575

MICHAEL A. BOLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-123-2)

Submitted: January 23, 2001 Decided: February 20, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Boley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Boley appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).

Boley’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Boley that the failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Boley failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Boley has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
****Exhibit12**                      COMPUTATIONOF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGESSEARS, ROEBUCKAND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES    SixMonthsEnded 6/30/01 YearEnded(millions,except ratios) (unaudited) 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996             Fixed Charges            Interest andamortization of debt discount            and expense onall indebtedness $716  $1,248  $1,268  $1,423  $1,409  $1,365              Addinterest element implicit in rentals 78 136  133  144  147  121   794  1,384  1,401  1,567  1,556  1,486 Interestcapitalized 4  4  5  5  3  5             Totalfixed charges  $798  $1,388  $1,406  $1,572  $1,559  $1,491              Income            Income (loss)before income taxes,            minority interestand extraordinary loss ($31) $2,223  $2,419  $1,883  $2,138  $2,113 Deduct undistributednet income (loss)            ofunconsolidated companies 6  17  (5) 11  13  8   (37) 2,206  2,424  1,872  2,125  2,105              Add            Fixedcharges (excluding interest capitalized) 794  1,384  1,401  1,567  1,556  1,486 Income beforefixed charges and            incometaxes $757  $3,590  $3,825  $3,439  $3,681  $3,591                           Ratioof income to fixed charges  (A) 2.59  2.72  2.19  2.36  2.41                           (A)As a result of the loss for the six months ended June 30, 2001, earningsdid not cover fixed charges by $41 million.             (B)Prior periods have been restated to conform to the current period computationand presentation.**
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4013 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the resources 

eligible for the renewable energy credit to kinetic hydropower, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 

Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the resources eligible for the renewable energy credit 

to kinetic hydropower, 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. EXPANSION OF RESOURCES ELIGIBLE FOR RE4 NEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT TO KINETIC HY5 DROPOWER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45(c)(1) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified energy re8 sources) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub9 paragraph (G), by striking the period at the end of subVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:28 Oct 04, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4013.IS S4013

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 4013 IS

1 paragraph (H) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at 

2 the end the following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(I) kinetic hydropower.’’. 

4 (b) DEFINITION OF RESOURCES.—Section 45(c) of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(10) KINETIC HYDROPOWER.—The term ‘ki8 netic hydropower’ means any of the following: 

9 ‘‘(A) Ocean free flowing water derived 

10 from flows from tidal currents, ocean currents, 

11 waves, or estuary currents. 

12 ‘‘(B) Ocean thermal energy. 

13 ‘‘(C) Free flowing water in rivers, lakes, 

14 man made channels, or streams.’’. 

15 (c) FACILITIES.—Section 45(d) of the Internal Rev16 enue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified facilities) is 

17 amended by adding at the end the following new para18 graph: 

19 ‘‘(11) KINETIC HYDROPOWER FACILITY.—In 

20 the case of a facility using kinetic hydropower to 

21 produce electricity, the term ‘qualified facility’ 

22 means any facility owned by the taxpayer which is 

23 originally placed in service after the date of the en24 actment of this paragraph and before January 1, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 4013 IS

1 2010. Such term shall not include a facility which 

2 includes impoundment structures.’’. 

3 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
### NUMBER 13

- 19

- 00 420

- C R

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

JOSEPH TAMEZ

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

On May 24, 2021, this Court received a letter from the 148th District Cou rt of

Nueces County, Texas, informing this Court tha t there was a potential issue regarding

appellant Joseph Tamez’s court appointed representation in this matter.

On its own motion, the Court, having examined a nd reconsidered the documents

on file, hereby abates and remands this cause to the trial court for further proceedings2 consistent with this order. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether new

appellate counsel shall be appointed in this matter. If the trial court determines that new

counsel should be appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and

state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing

counsel. If the trial court determines appell ant is not entitled to new court

- appointed

counsel, it shall issue such findings.

The trial court shall further cause its findings and/or order to be included in a

supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the

expiration of fifteen days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and file d on the

3rd day of June, 2021.