alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications


I, Helaine M. Kaplan, 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 the COMM 2013-CCRE9 Mortgage Trust (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 statements required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their
obligations under the servicing agreements 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:

KeyBank National Association (as successor to KeyCorp Real Estate Capital
Markets, Inc.), as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of
PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating
Advisor.


        Dated: March 22, 2017


        /s/ Helaine M. Kaplan


        President
        (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                    14,745
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            314,294
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                              308,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         766,800
<PP&E>                                 2,652,931
<DEPRECIATION>                            70,207
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         4,865,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,482,694
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  37,969
<OTHER-SE>                             2,178,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           4,865,644
<SALES>                                  514,797
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         514,797
<CGS>                                    467,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,262,375
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (1,349)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (25,245)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (1,019,628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (1,019,628)
<DISCONTINUED>                           (63,919)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          (1,083,547) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        




</TABLE>
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 25, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15422 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 0 0 1 5 1 - C R - T - 3 0 - E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O G E R M I G U E L B O R J A S - A N D R A D E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 25, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R o g er M i g u el B o rj as-A n d rad e ap p eal s h i s sen t en ce o f 8 7 m o n th s’2

i m pr i s onm e ntf

orc ons pi r a c yt o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , a nd pos s e s s i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e, atl ea stfi ve ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne w hi l e onb oard a ves se l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2, 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) , a nd 46 U . S . C . §§ 70503, 70506. B or j a s - A ndr a de a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourti m pr ope r l yi nc r e a s e d hi s of f e ns e l e ve l f

orpos s e s s i on of a dangerous w eapo n p ursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1). U n d e rth e G u id e lin e s , if ad e f e n d an t p o s s e s s e s ad a n g e r o u s w e ap o n in r e l a t i o n t o ad ru g o f

f e n s e , h i s o f

f e n s e l e v e l i s i n c r e a s e d b y2 l e v e l s . U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . T he c om m e nt a rypr ovi de s tha tthe w e apon e nha nc e m e nts houl d be appl i e d i f

aw e apon w a s pr e s e nt , unl e s s i tw a s c l e a r l yi m pr obabl e tha tthe w e apon w as conn ec t ed t o the offens e, and g i ves an u nl oaded h un t i ng ri fl e i n a re si dent i al c lo s e t a s a n e x a m p le o f

c le arim p r o b ab ility . I

d. c o m t. n .3 . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yappl i e d the § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) e nha nc e m e ntf or the pres ence of dang er ou s w eapo ns, because tw o w eapo ns w er e a vai l abl e t o p rot ec t th e 4 , 2 0 0 p o u n d s o f

c o c a i n e o n b o a r d th e s ub j e c tv e s s e l . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>             5
<LEGEND>              This Schedule contains Summary Financial Information
                      extracted from April 30, 1997 Financial Statements and 
                      is qualified in its entirety by reference to such.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                 0001014491
<NAME>                General American Royalty, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>          1
<CURRENCY>            US DOLLARS
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              OCT-31-1997             
<PERIOD-START>                 FEB-01-1997      
<PERIOD-END>                   APR-30-1997      
<CASH>                         14,301      
<SECURITIES>                        0      
<RECEIVABLES>                  27,648      
<ALLOWANCES>                        0 
<INVENTORY>                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               53,349      
<PP&E>                        568,322     
<DEPRECIATION>                 49,883       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                575,873     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         233,934      
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                          917  
<OTHER-SE>                    341,022      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  575,873   
<SALES>                        93,105  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               93,105
<CGS>                               0     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 214,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               25,154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             10,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (157,080)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                  (157,080)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.17) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.17) 
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


Certification Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Imation Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Paul R. Zeller, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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.




May 5, 2011/s/ PAUL R. ZELLERPaul R. Zeller,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 11.1
                         THE NORTH FACE, INC.

                  COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
              (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended
                                                     June 30,           June 30,
                                               ------------------- ------------------
                                               1998      1997      1998     1997
                                               --------- --------- -------- ---------

<S>                                           <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding 
  during the period:

Weighted average shares outstanding - basic   11,968    11,222   11,752    11,220

Incremental shares from assumed
  exercise of stock options............ .          0         0        0         0
                                             --------- --------- -------- ---------
Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding - diluted     11,968    11,222   11,752    11,220
                                             ========= ========= ======== =========

Net Loss................................     ($2,670)  ($2,007) ($2,210)  ($1,772)
                                             ========= ========= ======== =========

Net Loss Per Share
     Basic..............................      ($0.22)   ($0.18)  ($0.19)   ($0.16)

     Diluted............................      ($0.22)   ($0.18)  ($0.19)   ($0.16)



</TABLE>
#### John OSANITSCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARCONI PLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-15437.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2008.

Filed May 29, 2008.

Timothy D. Murphy, The Law Offices of James Jay Seltzer, Emeryville, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Alan W. Tamarelli, Jr., Harold H. Davis, Jr., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Preston, Gates, Ellis, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

John Osanitsch sued Marconi, PLC and its subsidiary, Marconi Acquisition Sub., Inc., in Sonoma County Superior Court. Marconi removed the action to the Northern District of California. Osanitsch moved to remand, which the district court denied, and Marconi moved to dismiss based on an injunction previously entered by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 304, which the district court granted. Osanitsch appealed. We vacate the dismissal order, and remand.

While the district court correctly resolved one of the jurisdictional issues before it — whether the injunction itself precluded Marconi from removing or made its removal premature- — the court did not explicitly determine whether the removal petition was timely in light of when, and upon whom, service was effected. As Marconi acknowledged at oral argument, the record is not fully developed on this point. The issue also appears to be fact-dependent and may present a novel question of which rule, the first-served rule or the last-served rule, is applicable. Accordingly, to facilitate appellate review, and because the district court is in a better position to address these matters in the first instance, we remand for it to make a definitive ruling on the timeliness of removal and, thus, on its jurisdiction.1

As federal jurisdiction is not yet settled, we decline to give an advisory opinion on the propriety of the dismissal. Without expressing any view on the merits, however, we must vacate the order as it is not clear there was jurisdiction when it was entered.

During the pendency of this appeal, as contemplated by the district court, Osan-itsch requested relief from the bankruptcy court having jurisdiction over the § 304 proceeding. That court ultimately entered an order which may, or may not, have an effect on whether a live controversy continues with respect to the dismissal order, and as to its validity. If the district court determines that jurisdiction was timely in*313voked, we leave it to the parties to assert in district court whatever position with respect to supervening events they believe is appropriate.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. We do not understand there to be any dispute over the presence of diversify or the adequacy of the amount in controversy.
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18


U.S.C. SS. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-


OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report (the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




By
/s/ Arthur L. SmithArthur L. SmithPresident andChief Executive OfficerDecember 14, 2011
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.2
 LETTER OF NON-QUALIFIED OPTION GRANT  ORTHOLOGIC CORP. 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 Date
 Name & address
  
   1. Grant of Option  shares purchase
price of $  per Share. option is   (hereinafter referred to as the Option Date).
 2. Exercise Term of Option
 Number of Shares
    
    Vesting Schedule
 3. Nontransferability.




---



##### 



4. Other Conditions and Limitations.
 (a)
    
    Any Shares issued upon exercise of this option shall not be
issued unless the issuance and delivery of Shares pursuant thereto shall comply
with all relevant provisions of law including, without limitation, the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, any applicable state
securities or Blue Sky law or laws (or an exemption from such provision is
available), and the requirements of any stock exchange or national market
system of a national securities association upon which the Shares may then be
listed and shall be further subject to the approval of counsel for the Company
with respect to such compliance.(b)
    
    No transfer of any Shares issued upon the exercise of the
option will be permitted by the Company, unless any request for transfer is
accompanied by evidence satisfactory to the Company that the proposed transfer
will not result in a violation of any applicable law, rule or regulation,
whether federal or state, including in the discretion of the Company an opinion
of counsel reasonably acceptable to the Company.(c)
    
    Inability of the Company to obtain approval from any regulatory
body having jurisdictional authority deemed by the Companys counsel to be
necessary to the lawful issuance and sale of any Shares hereunder shall relieve
the Company of any liability in respect to the nonissuance or sale of such
Shares as to which such requisite authority shall not have been obtained.(d)
    
    Unless the Shares are subject to a then effective registration
statement under the Securities Act of 1933, upon exercise of this option (in
whole or in part) and the issuance of the Shares, the Company shall instruct
its transfer agent to enter stop transfer orders with respect to Shares, and
all certificates representing the Shares shall bear on the face thereof
substantially the following legend:
  5. Exercise of Option




---



##### 



6. Valuation and Withholding
 7. Termination of Non-Qualified Stock Options
 8. Miscellaneous.
 9. Governing Law.




---



##### 



10. Relationship to the 2005 Plan
 11. Communication
  Very truly yours,OrthoLogic Corp.By:
    
    John M. Holliman, IIIExecutive ChairmanACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:Name:Date:
#### Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability by REINAUER OIL TRANSPORT, Inc., Owner, and Boston Fuel Transportation, Inc., Charterer.

No. 52-58.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

March 8, 1956.

Thomas H. Walsh, Boston, Mass., for petitioner.

John M. Russell, Boston, Mass., for charterer.

FORD, District Judge.

Requests under Admiralty Rule 32B and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36, 28 U.S.C.A., should be used to obtain admission of facts about which there is no real dispute. They should deal with singular relevant facts which can be clearly admitted or denied and not with complicated situations involving many distinct and vital controversial is-* sues of facts. They should not be used as a means of covering the entire case and every item of evidence. Exceptions sustained. 4 Moore, Federal Practice, § 36.04, p. 2711; Alaska Credit Bureau of Juneau v. Stevenson, D.C., 15 F.R.D. 409; Knowlton v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 62.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6788

JURONE HAMMOND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN S. WOLFE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-03721-RDB)

Submitted: July 29, 2024 Decided: August 12, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jurone Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6788 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jurone Hammond seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.∗

 See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 

(2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, 

running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 

U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hammond has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We deny Hammond’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

∗ We previously remanded Hammond’s appeal of the denial of his § 2254 petition 

with instructions for the district court to consider Hammond’s claim that trial counsel 

provided ineffective assistance by abandoning him at trial and conceding Hammond’s guilt 

without his consent. Hammond v. Wolfe, 2022 WL 4182770 (4th Cir. 2022) (No. 21-6277). 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6788 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 2