alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

 
|        |                                     | ** ** |      |            |
|--------|------------------------------------------|------------|-----------|-----------------|
|   | **KPM****G****LLP**                      |       | Telephone | (514)  840-2100 |
|   | **Chartered  Accountants**               |       | Telefax   | (514)  840-2187 |
|   | 600 boul. de  Maisonneuve Ouest     |       | Internet  | www.kpmg.ca     |
|   | Suite 1500                          |       |      |            |
|   | Tour KPMG                                |       |      |
|   | Montréal, Québec  H3A 0A3 |       |      |

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

 

March 6, 2009

 
| RE: | Commission File Number:  033-51000 - Videotron Ltd. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------|

 

We were previously auditorsfor Videotron Ltd. and, under the date of February 29,2008, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of Videotron Ltd. as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for the years ended December 31,2007, 2006 and 2005. On May 6, 2008, we were dismissed. We have read Videotron Ltd. statements included under Item 16F of its Form 20-F dated March 6,2009, and we agree with such statements contained in paragraphs two and three,and paragraph five as it relates to KPMG LLP. We are not in a position to agree or disagree with the followingstatements of the registrant contained in Item 16F:

 

·                  the appointment of their new auditors and thenew auditor’s audit;

·                  the approval of the audit committee of thechange of auditors;

·                  the consultation with their new auditorsregarding the matters noted in paragraph 4; and

·                  the communication and response of their newauditors regarding the matters noted in paragraph 5.

 

 
| Very truly yours, |   |
|-------------------|--------|

 

Chartered Accountants

KPMG LLP is aCanadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network ofindependent member firms affiliated with KPMG international, a Swisscooperative.

KPMG Canadaprovides services to KPMG LLP.

 

----
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. § 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MoSys, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Leonard Perham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
James W. Sullivan, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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.

/s/ LEONARD PERHAM Leonard Perham President and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 26, 2010/s/ JAMES W. SULLIVAN James W. Sullivan Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 26, 2010


This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32

Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, based
on our knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  |                                                                                  
|----------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 6, 2008 |  |  |  | MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|                  |  |  |  |                           
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  | By:             |  | /s/ David Schramm                                                                
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | David Schramm                                                                    
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                            
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 6, 2008 |  |  |  | By:                        |  | /s/ Tim T. Hart
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | Tim T. Hart                                                                      
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | Senior Vice President  Finance, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### Yitzchak M. Hirsch, Also Known as Justin Hirsch, by Devorah Hirsch, His Mother and Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v New York City Department of Education et al., Respondents.

[961 NYS2d 923]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered July 15, 2011, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion to compel plaintiffs to accept their untimely answer and to dismiss the complaint as against defendant James Secreto, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting the cross motion to compel plaintiff to accept service of the late answer *(see*CPLR 3012 [d]). The City’s delay in answering on behalf of the individual defendants was reasonable in that it was due to its investigation of its obligation to defend them *(see Silverio v Cit of New York,*266 AD2d 129 [1st Dept 1999]; General Municipal Law § 50-k [2]). Moreover, there is no indication that plaintiffs were prejudiced by the short delay, and defendants were not required to set forth a meritorious defense because no default judgment had been entered *(see Nason v Fisher,*309 AD2d 526 [1st Dept 2003]).

Dismissal of the complaint as against defendant Secreto was proper, in light of plaintiffs’ failure to personally serve him *(see*CPLR 308 [2]).

Concur—Andrias, J.E, Moskowitz, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, *JJ.*
Exhibit 31

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(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 IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR5 (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)
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Darin G. Billerbeck, as Chief Executive Officer of ZiLOG,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ZiLOG, Inc.



|                        |                               
|----------------------- | ------------------------------
|Date: February 10, 2009 | By:    /s/ Darin G. Billerbeck

| |                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------
| |                                                
| | Darin G. Billerbeck                            
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Perry J. Grace, as Chief Financial Officer of ZiLOG, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ZiLOG, Inc.



|                        |                          
|----------------------- | -------------------------
|Date: February 10, 2009 | By:    /s/ Perry J. Grace

| |                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| |                                                     
| | Perry J. Grace                                      
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---
#### Albert D. PAGE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Cecilia REYNOLDS, Warden; James Jefferson, Lieutenant Supervisor; Nancy Price, Officer; Jon Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections in their official and individual capacities; Lamandy Perry, Officer; Allison McCaskill, Nurse; Doctor Mckenney; Doctor Duffy, a/k/a Doctor McDuffy, orthopedic specialist; Defendants, Defendants—Appellees.

*289No. 08-8239.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 22, 2009.

Decided: May 8, 2009.

Albert D. Page, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Joel Steve Hughes, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert D. Page appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice Page’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and excessive force. His claims were referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge found Page’s claims to be without merit, and recommended the district court deny relief. Page filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings with regard to Page’s excessive force claim, but failed to object to the magistrate judge’s deliberate indifference findings. The district court overruled Page’s objections and dismissed with prejudice Page’s claims.

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). Accordingly, we find that Page has waived appellate review of the claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We affirm the judgment of the district court as to this claim.

Concerning the remainder of Page’s appeal, we have reviewed the record, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Page v. Reynolds,*No. 9:07-cv-03060-HFF, 2008 WL 4427324 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008). We deny Page’s motions to depose a witness and for summary disposition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 35.1


[LOGO] IMPAC

                                                       IMPAC FUNDING CORPORATION
                                        19500 JAMBOREE ROAD | IRVINE, CA | 92612
                                         WWW.IMPACCOMPANIES.COM | 1-800-597-4101

                    ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

                            Impac Funding Corporation

                        Impac Secured Assets Corp. 2007-1

      I, Mario Fegan, a duly authorized officer of Impac Funding Corporation, as
master servicer (the "Master Servicer") pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement (the "Agreement"), hereby certify that:

      1. A review of the Master Servicer's activities during the period from and
including January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the
"Reporting Period") and of the Master Servicer's performance under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision.

      2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period, except for the following:

      a) With respect to custodial accounts, reconciliations were not prepared
      within the 45 day timeframe, because of the downsizing of the department
      responsible for these reconciliations due to the ongoing disruption in the
      mortgage market. This exception has been corrected and the reconciliations
      are expected to be completed timely in the future.

      b) With respect to monitoring of performance triggers, the Master Servicer
      did compute and monitor the performance of the transaction. However, a
      calculation error caused one of the trigger tests to display a variance
      within tolerance when such a variance may not have existed. The failure of
      this particular test had no impact on either the reporting or remittance
      to the trust and has since been corrected and verified by management.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate
this 20th day of March 2008.


                                               By: /s/ Mario Fegan
                                                   -----------------------------
                                               Name: Mario Fegan
                                               Title: V.P., Master Servicing
#### Michael F. Vukovich, Respondent-Appellant, v 1345 Fee, LLC, et al., Defendants, Plaza Construction Corp., Appellant-Respondent, and ADCO Electrical Corp., Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 86]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered May 1, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, and denied the cross motion of defendant Plaza Construction Corp. (Plaza) for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims and on its claim for contractual indemnification against defendant ADCO Electrical Corp. (ADCO), unanimously modified, on the law, plaintiffs motion granted, and Plaza’s cross motion granted as to its claim for contractual indemnification against ADCO, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when, while working as a pipe fitter at the premises being renovated, he received an electric shock and fell from the third or fourth rung of an unsecured A-frame ladder. There were no witnesses to the accident.

The evidence demonstrates that plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The ladder provided to plaintiff was inadequate to prevent him from falling five to seven feet to the floor after being shocked, and was a proximate cause of his injuries *(see Williams v 520 Madison Partnership,*38 AD3d 464 [2007]; *Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp.,*292 AD2d 289 [2002]). That plaintiff had no recollection of falling to the floor does not alter this result *(see Felker v Corning Inc.,*90 NY2d 219 [1997]).

*411Since there are questions of fact concerning Plaza’s authority to control the activity in question, summary judgment was properly denied with respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action *(Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494 [1993]). Despite such factual questions, contractual indemnification in favor of Plaza against ADCO should have been granted since they allocated the risks of the enterprise by provision for insurance *(see Kinney v Lisk Co.,*76 NY2d 215 [1990]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Alan Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd., certify, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the Annual Report), which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 1350.

Dated: February 11, 2011



/s/ ALAN CAMPBELLAlan CampbellChief Financial Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 698 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 698

To suspend temporarily the duty on methacrylamido etheleneurae monomer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on methacrylamido etheleneurae monomer.

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

SECTION 1. METHACRYLAMIDO ETHELENEURAE MONOMER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.03       Mixtures of N-[2-  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (2-Oxo-1-                                                          31/2007
                         imidazolidinyl)et
                         hyl]methacrylamid
                         e (CAS No. 3089-
                         19-8),
                         methacrylic acid
                         (CAS No. 79-41-
                         4), and water
                         (CAS No. 7732-18-
                         5) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3824.90.91)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```