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

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Trust.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                     |  |  |  | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 8, 2014 |  |  |  | By:                                                            |  | /s/ DICKERMAN C. SADLER
|                     |  |  |  |                                                                |  | Dickerman C. Sadler,   
|                     |  |  |  |                                                                |  | Managing Director      
|                     |  |  |  |                                                                |  | Bank of America, N.A.  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 34.1.3

 

[Letterhead of KPMG LLP]

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

The Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank National Association: 

We have examined the accompanying management's assertion, that The Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored entity (the Platform) as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007. Management has determined that servicing criteria 1I22(d)(l)(iv), 1I22(d)(4)(i) and 1I22(d)(4)(ii) are applicable to the activities it performs with respect to thePlatform, and that all other servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the document custody services provided by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determinewhether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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 servicing criteria as of and for the period ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 

***/s/ KPMG LLP***

 

Chicago, Illinois

February 29, 2008
##### 



Exhibit 15

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

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim condensed
consolidated financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the 13-week
periods ended March 29, 2003 and March 30, 2002, as indicated in our report
dated May 5, 2003; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 13-week period ended March 29, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,
33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345,
and 333-08141 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration Statement No. 333-92082
of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration
Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and
Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; Registration Statement No.
333-102114 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the Sears 401(K) Savings Plan
(formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees and the Sears
401(K) Profit Sharing Plan) and Lands End, Inc. Retirement Plan; Registration
Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp.;
Registration Statement No. 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the Sears
Associate Stock Ownership Plan; Registration Statement No. 333-52056 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. and the 2000 Employee Stock Plan; Registration Statement No.
333-72514 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2001 Broad-Based Stock Option Plan;
and Registration Statement No. 333-87942 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2002
Non-Employee Director Stock Plan.

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

|                                                 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP |  | 
|                                                 |  | 
|Chicago, Illinois
May 5, 2003                    |  |
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

      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, Louis DiNardo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Xicor, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly represents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Xicor, Inc.

                                         By: /s/ Louis DiNardo
                                             -------------------------------
                                         Name: Louis DiNardo
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer

I, Geraldine N. Hench, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Xicor, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly represents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Xicor, Inc.

                                         By: /s/ Geraldine N. Hench
                                             -------------------------------
                                         Name: Geraldine N. Hench
                                         Title: Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Transition Report of ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe three-month transition period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), JamesThorburn, as Chief Executive Officer of ZiLOG, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge that the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of ZiLOG, Inc.

 
|   | Date: January 31, 2006          |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |
|   |                                 |   |
|   | /s/ James M. Thorburn                |   |
|   | James M. Thorburn                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Inconnection with the Transition Report of ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe three-month transition period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities 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, tohis knowledge that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theReport fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of ZiLOG, Inc.

 
|   | Date:  January 31 , 2006          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |
|   |                                        |
|   | /s/ Perry J. Grace                          |   |
|   | Perry J. Grace                              |
|   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Oldwebsites.com, Inc., (the “Company”) on 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Richard Ivanovick, Chief Financial 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; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 November 18, 2010
/s/ James RoszelJames RoszelPresident
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Michael Francis Palma v. Harris County Appraisal Review 

Board

Appellate case number: 01-18-00506-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-17668

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

The Clerk of this Court’s June 26, 2018 notice requested that the district clerk file 

the indigent clerk’s record. Then, after the district clerk’s July 23, 2018 original clerk’s 

record on indigence contained several documents, but not the appellant’s affidavit of 

indigence, the Clerk of this Court’s July 26, 2018 notice requested that the district clerk 

file a supplemental indigent clerk’s record to include that document. On August 8, 2018, 

the district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the pro se appellant Michael 

Francis Palma’s affidavit of indigence, filed on March 16, 2018, but neither indigent clerk’s 

record contained any objection or trial court’s order overruling appellant’s indigence claim.

The court reporter’s August 9, 2018 info sheet stated that there was no reporter’s record

and the original clerk’s record was filed on August 13, 2018.

Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1 provides that a party who files such a Statement

in the trial court “is not required to pay costs in the appellate court unless the trial court

overruled the party’s claim of indigence in an order that complies with Texas Rule of Civil 

Procedure 145.” TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(b)(1). Because appellant’s indigence claim was not 

overruled by an order with detailed findings of fact that complies with Rule 145, appellant 

is not required to pay costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(b)(1); TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(a), (f)(1).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to mark appellant indigent in this 

Court’s records and allowed to proceed without advance payment of the appellate filing

and clerk’s and reporter’s record fees. Because appellant is proceeding pro se, the Court 

ORDERS the district clerk to mail the clerk’s, indigent clerk’s, and supplemental clerk’s 
records to the appellant, at no cost to appellant, within 20 days of the date of this order, 

and shall certify the delivery date within 30 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes _______________________________

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: August 16, 2018
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Dwayne MURELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-16422

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 29, 2009.

Mario Dwayne Murell, Atlanta, GA, pro se. *811Jenny Lynn Smith, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Joyce White Vance, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before DUBINA, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Mario Dwayne Murell, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. On appeal, Murell argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 8582(c)(2) motion because it failed to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and based its decision on his criminal history as a teenager and young adult. Murell further argues that the district court incorrectly characterized his previous criminal history.

We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Brown,*332 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir.2003). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment “in the case of a defendant who [was] sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

In considering a defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), a district court must engage in a two-part analysis: first, the court must recalculate the sentence under the amended guidelines; second, the court must decide whether, in its discretion, it will choose to impose a new sentence or retain the original sentence. *United States v. Bravo,*203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir.2000). The second part of the analysis “should be made in light of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” *Id.*at 781.

In the instant case, the district court recalculated the guideline range under the amended guidelines. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that in denying Mu-rell’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, specifically, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. On this record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Murell’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Murell’s motion for reduction of sentence.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATION FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,469,223
<SECURITIES>                                    25,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,073,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                   257,016
<INVENTORY>                                  4,404,861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,913,571
<PP&E>                                       5,887,493
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,272,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,659,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,886,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                        60,533
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,446,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,659,685
<SALES>                                     19,525,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,091,031
<CGS>                                       10,134,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,120,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             899,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,988
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,352
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,636
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,636
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1529

WALTER H. LEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The Honorable Marion

Barry, Jr.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-201)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter H. Lee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

workers' compensation claim for lack of jurisdiction. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Lee v. District of Columbia, No. CA-97-201 (E.D.

Va. Mar. 19, 1997). 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
<TABLE>

							 EXHIBIT 12(a)
			  
					 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
				      SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES






<CAPTION>
					      Twelve         Three
					      Months         Months
					      Ended          Ended
					      April 4,       April 4,
					      1998           1998
(millions, except ratios)                     (unaudited)    (unaudited)   1997     1996     1995     1994     1993
<S>                                             <C>             <C>        <C>      <C>       <C>     <C>      <C>
Fixed Charges

 Interest and amortization of debt
  discount and expense on all
  indebtedness                                $1,433         $  376       $1,409   $1,365   $1,373   $1,279   $1,318

 Add interest element implicit in rentals        147             38          147      121      119      114      105
					       1,580            414        1,556    1,486    1,492    1,393    1,423
Interest Capitalized                               4              1            3        5        4        1        3
Total fixed charges                           $1,584        $   415       $1,559   $1,491   $1,496   $1,394   $1,426

Income
 Income from continuing operations            $1,139        $   133       $1,188   $1,271   $1,025   $  857   $  625
 Deduct undistributed net income
  of unconsolidated companies                      7              2           13        8        9       (7)       6
					       1,132            131        1,175    1,263    1,016      864      619
Add
 Fixed charges (excluding interest
  capitalized)                                 1,580            414        1,556    1,486    1,492    1,393    1,423
 Income taxes                                    839             92          912      834      703      614      329
  Income before fixed charges and
   income taxes                               $3,552        $   637       $3,643   $3,583    $3,211   $2,871  $2,371

Ratio of income to fixed charges                2.24           1.54        2.34      2.40      2.15     2.06    1.66


</TABLE>