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





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the quarterly report of Franklin Covey Co. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Robert A. Whitman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephen D. Young,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of our knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.









/s/
      Robert A. Whitman
                  
                  /s/
      Stephan D. YoungRobert
      A. Whitman
                    Chief
      Executive Officer
                  
                  Stephen
      D. Young
                    Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      July 9, 2009
                  
                  Date:
      July 9, 2009
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18152]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of 10178--American Marine Bank, Bainbridge Island, 
Washington

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for American Marine Bank, Bainbridge 
Island, Washington (``the Receiver'') intends to terminate its 
receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of 
American Marine Bank on January 29, 2010. The liquidation of the 
receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by 
available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making 
a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing 
and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and 
Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 
Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18152 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Deric S. Eubanks, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc.; and

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.

 
| Date: April 30,   2019 |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |
|                        | By:    | /s/ Deric S. Eubanks |
|                        |   | Deric S. Eubanks |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
(logo) C-III | C-III Asset Management  **OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE****C-III Asset Management LLC**  The undersigned, Kevin Donahue, President of C-III Asset Management LLC *(f/k/a Centerline Servicing LLC)*, the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013, relating to the **J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-LC11, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-LC11** (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), hereby certifies as follows: 1. a review of the activities of the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the calendar year 2015 (the “Reporting Period”) has been made under the undersigned’s supervision; 2. to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, as of the 1st day of March, 2016, I have hereunto signed my name. /s/ Kevin Donahue**Kevin Donahue**, PresidentC-III Asset Management LLC, aDelaware limited liability company  JPM 2013-LC11
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of LeaP
Technology, Inc. (the "Company") for the twelve month period ended December 31,
2003 (the "Annual Report"), I, Timothy C. Lincoln, Acting Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge
and belief that the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 22, 2004                          /s/ Timothy C. Lincoln
                                              ----------------------
                                              Timothy C. Lincoln
                                              Acting Principal Executive Officer
O rder filed May 9 , 2013



### In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 1 1

- 00 231

- CR

__________

J OHN POWELL , Appellant

V.

THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Ector County, Texas

Tri al Court Cause No. 10

- 4391

O R D E R

T h is appeal has been unduly stalled due to the failure of A ppellant’s

appointed counsel, Anthony Robles , to file an appellate brief. The brief was due

on December 3 1

, 201 2

. We have had no further communication from counsel.

More than four months have passed since th e deadline, and c ounsel has yet to file a

brief

.2 By this order, Anthony Robles i s ORDERED to file in this court a brief on

behalf of A ppellant on or before May 24 , 201 3

.

PER CURIAM

May 9 , 2013

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 984 

AN ACT 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

Medicare beneficiary access to eye tracking accessories 

for speech generating devices and to remove the rental 

cap for durable medical equipment under the Medicare 

Program with respect to speech generating devices. 
2 

†S 984 ES

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Steve Gleason Act of 

5 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROVIDING MEDICARE BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO 

7 EYE TRACKING ACCESSORIES FOR SPEECH 

8 GENERATING DEVICES. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(n) of the Social Se10 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by inserting 

11 ‘‘and eye tracking and gaze interaction accessories for 

12 speech generating devices furnished to individuals with a 

13 demonstrated medical need for such accessories’’ after 

14 ‘‘appropriate organizations)’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to devices furnished 

17 on or after January 1, 2016. 

18 SEC. 3. REMOVING THE RENTAL CAP FOR DURABLE MED19 ICAL EQUIPMENT UNDER MEDICARE WITH 

20 RESPECT TO SPEECH GENERATING DEVICES. 

21 Section 1834(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 

22 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(2)(A)) is amended— 

23 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

24 (2) in clause (iii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

25 and 
3 

†S 984 ES

1 (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following 

2 new clause: 

3 ‘‘(iv) in the case of devices furnished 

4 on or after October 1, 2015, and before 

5 October 1, 2018, which serves as a speech 

6 generating device or which is an accessory 

7 that is needed for the individual to effec8 tively utilize such a device,’’. 

Passed the Senate April 22, 2015. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 984 

AN ACT 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 

spect to speech generating devices. equipment under the Medicare Program with reto remove the rental cap for durable medical ing accessories for speech generating devices and provide Medicare beneficiary access to eye track-
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kronos Incorporated (the
Company) for the period ended January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Mark S.
Ain, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Paul A. Lacy, Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

|Date: February 9, 2005 | /s/ Mark S. Ain                            
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                       | Mark S. Ain
        Chief Executive Officer
|                      



|Date: February 9, 2005 | /s/ Paul A. Lacy                                                                 
|---------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Paul A. Lacy
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kronos Incorporated and will be
retained by Kronos Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit
10.38

    


    AMENDMENT
NUMBER TWO TO

    EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

    


    This
Amendment Number Two is made as of December 30, 2008, to the Employment
Agreement dated as of April 28, 2006 (the “Agreement”), by and between Southern
Community Bank and Trust and Southern Community Financial Corporation and F.
Scott Bauer (“Executive”).

    


    1.  The
Agreement is amended by adding the following Paragraph:

    


    “8.12.   Compliance
with ESSA. To the extent that any payment under this Agreement would
constitute a prohibited parachute payment under Section 111(b)(2)(C) of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), the Employer agrees to
pay Executive an additional payment equal to the prohibited payment on July 1,
2012, or if later, the earliest date when Section 111(b)(2)(C) of EESA no longer
prohibits such payment.  Such payment shall be made in a single lump
sum in cash, without interest.  The Executive may be entitled to
severance payments from multiple agreements and plans with the
Employer.  The Employer, it its sole discretion, shall determine which
payments shall be delayed in order to comply with
ESSA.   Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph to the
contrary, the additional amounts due under the Agreement shall not be paid if
the Treasury Department or other governmental agency issues guidance subsequent
to the date of this Agreement that would prohibit such payment.  A
prohibited parachute payment shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent
with Notice 2008-TAAP, Notice 2008-94 and all other current or future guidance
issued  pursuant to Section 111(b)(2)(C) of EESA or Section 280G(e) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.”

    


    2.  No
other terms and conditions of the Agreement are affected by this
Amendment.

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written
above.

    


    
      
        	
                SOUTHERN
      COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION

              
	 
      
	 
      	
                By:

              	
                /s/ Jeff T.
      Clark

              
	 
      	 
      	
                Jeff
      T. Clark, President

              
	 
      
	
                SOUTHERN
      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST

              
	 
      
	 
      	
                By:

              	
                /s/ Jeff T.
      Clark

              
	 
      	 
      	
                Jeff
      T. Clark, President

              
	 
      


      

    

    
      
        	
                EXECUTIVE

              
	 
      
	 
      	
                 /s/ F. Scott Bauer

              	
                (SEAL)

              
	 
      	
                F.
      Scott Bauer
Exhibit 32.2

# AEROSONIC CORPORATION

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Aerosonic Corporation (the Company) for the period
ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Gary E. Colbert, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the
               Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 1, 2007

/s/ Gary E. Colbert Gary E. ColbertExecutive
Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer
#### Application of A. PELLEGRINO & SON. Inc.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Nov. 20, 1950.

*210Haight, Deming, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, for Waages Tankrederi.

Purdy, Lamb & Catoggio, New York City, for A. Pellegrino & Son, Inc.

RYAN, District Judge.

A. Pellegrino & Son, Inc., which is not joined as a party in this libel filed in admiralty, moves to quash a subpoena duces tecum to appear for examination as a witness in advance of trial in that suit, served upon it by Waages Tankrederi, a respondent, under Local Admiralty Rule 46.

Although a witness, not a party, may not be personally represented by a proctor during the taking of his deposition, he cannot be denied the right to move to quash an invalid or oppressive subpoena.

Pellegrino is located in the Eastern District of New York, within 100 miles of the courthouse of the Southern District, where this trial will be had; its officer, who was served, resides within that area. Section 639, old Title 28 of the Code, has not been repealed by the revision of Title 28, 28 U.S.C.A. note preceding section 1781, Mercado v. United States of America, 2 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 24. It is argued that the scope of Local Admiralty Rule 46 is still limited by Section 639.

Respondent urges that this restriction applies to the use of the deposition on trial, and not to the taking of it; and that, although it may not use the deposition as evidence on trial, it is not restricted from taking it for purposes of discovery. Respondent quite frankly states that it intends to implead Pellegrino in the pending suit, but only after the taking of its deposition. This disclosed purpose, aione, would not prevent it from taking the depposition.

Local Admiralty Rule 46 was adopted pursuant to the authority delegated to the District Courts by the Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 44, 28 U.S.C.A. By Rule 46, the taking and use of depositions in Admiralty is governed by the federal rules of civil procedure, except that the use of them is limited as specified. Although their use on trial is still limited by this local rule and by Section 639, old Title 28, the deposition of a witness may now be taken in admiralty for .purposes of discovery, even though it may not be used on trial.

Motion to quash subpoena denied.
| Date:      November 12, 2010 |                                  |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                         |                                  |
|                         | /s/ ROBERT PUTNAM                     |   |
|                         |                                  |   |
|                         | Robert      Putnam,                   |   |
|                         | Interim      Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|                         | (Principal      Financial Officer)    |   |

| Date:      November 12, 2010 |                               |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                         |                               |
|                         | /s/ ALFRED H. FALK                 |   |
|                         | Alfred      H. Falk,               |   |
|                         | President      and CEO,            |   |
|                         | (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

----
#### MICHAEL J. MAGGIO, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. SUSSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued December 7, 1953

Decided December 23, 1953.

*2Before Judges Jayne, Stanton and Francis.

*Mr. Willis H. Sherred*argued the cause for the appellants *(Messrs. Morris, Downing \& Sherred,*attorneys).

*Mr. John T. Madden*argued the cause for the respondents *(Messrs. Dolan and Dolan,*attorneys).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs held a judgment which was entered against Lillian Kindred in the Sussex County Circuit Court in 1938 and they delivered a writ of execution issued thereon to the sheriff on June 5, 1953. The defendant welfare board pursuant to *N. J. S. A.*44:7-14 and 15 filed with the clerk of the County Court on May 1, 1953 a certificate showing the amount of assistance advanced to the said Lillian Kindred. The statute provides that upon such filing the certificate shall have the same force and effect as a civil judgment and that it may be proceeded upon according to the practice in the County Court. Execution was issued thereon and the writ was delivered to the sheriff on May 28, 1953. The County Court held that the board’s judgment should be first satisfied from the proceeds of the sale.

The plaintiffs concede that a holder of a junior judgment may acquire priority of satisfaction over the holder of a senior judgment by the earlier delivery of his writ of execution to the sheriff. *N. J. S. 2A*:17-12 and 13. However, they contend that this rule does not apply here because of the language of the old age assistance statute. They point out that the board’s judgment has priority over *all unrecorded encumbrances*under *N. J. S. A.*44:7-14 and over *all unse*
      *3
      *cured claims*except burial and funeral expenses under *N. J. S. A.*44:7-15, and argue that by reason thereof a legislative intent is indicated to the effect that the priority of earlier judgments may not be affected by such a judgment. They cite *Camden County Welfare Board v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 1 N. J. Super.*532 *(Ch. Div.*1948). That case dealt with the question of priority of the liens of judgments held by the named parties and not of the issuance of executions thereon; under it and the cited statute the plaintiffs here had, that which the defendant board does not question, a prior lien. There is nothing in the statute however, which limits the board’s right to acquire over the plaintiffs by its diligence that which any junior judgment creditor might acquire by the earlier delivery of execution to the sheriff, namely priority of satisfaction. There is no merit to the plaintiffs’ contention and the judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hubert RAMSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7577.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.

*535Hubert Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hubert Ramsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) motion and dismissing it, in part, as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Ramsey’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Ramsey’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.*