alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARROW
      INTERNATIONAL, INC.  **Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 **Section
        1350 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
        ended
        November 30, 2006 of Arrow International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
        (the
“Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
        hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick J. Hirt, the Senior Vice President of
        Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant
        to
        18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002, to my knowledge and based upon a review of the Report, that:
 
 (1) t he
          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
                as of the dates
                and for periods presented as required by such
                Report.
 This
        certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, my own due diligence and representations
        made
        by certain other members of the Company’s senior management.
 
 Date:
        January 8, 2007
 
 /s/
                  Frederick J.
                  Hirt
                Frederick
                  J. Hirt
                Chief
                  Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Finance
                (Principal
                  Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
                  Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00841-CV

In re Cynthia Johnson

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a motion for emergency stay and petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex.

R. App. P. 52.8, 52.10. Having reviewed the pleadings and the record provided, we deny the petition

for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Filed: January 7, 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LAN TU TRINH,

Petitioner

v.

KATHLEEN LIEN TRINH, MICHAEL

TRINH AND LT INTERNATIONAL

BEAUTY SCHOOL, INC.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 78 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of September , 2018, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
SEMT 2013-8

 

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

 

I, Jeremy P. Strom, 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 Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8 (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 and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, 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: CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (“CoreLogic”), American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), Cenlar, FSB as Servicer,  First Republic Bank as Servicer, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Servicer, Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper Master Servicing, as Master Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, N.A. as Custodian, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

 

Date: April 1, 2024

 

/s/	Jeremy P. Strom	

Signature

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

----
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 1 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAYME HILL,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee,

v. NEW MEXICO SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, State of New Mexico, ex rel; MITZI BAKER-GARLAND; THOMAS J. DILLON, III; CAROLYN SESSA; J. FLOYD TRUJILLO, individually and in their official capacities as members of the Board of Regents of the New Mexico School for the Deaf; GILBERT DELGADO, individually and in his official capacity as superintendent of New Mexico School for the Deaf; LYNN ANN BARBERO, individually and in her official capacity as principal of New Mexico School for the Deaf; JIM LUCERO, individually and in his official capacity as counselor at New Mexico School for the Deaf; W.N. “BILL” DIXON, Defendants-Appellants.

v. No. 96-2090 (D.C. No. CIV 95-117 M) (D. New Mexico)* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. Risk Management Division New Mexico State of New Mexico; NEW MEXICO SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, State of New Mexico, ex rel. Risk Management Division of the General Services Department of the State of New Mexico, ex rel., Counter and Cross-Claim

Defendants.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, LOGAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Jayme Hill filed this action in state court against defendants State of New Mexico ex rel. New Mexico School for the Deaf, five of the School’s Board of Regents, the School’s principal and superintendent, and Jim Lucero, a School counselor, all in their individual and official capacities, alleging that Lucero sexually harassed plaintiff. Plaintiff then amended the complaint adding federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants removed the case to3

federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The district court, however, determined that the Eleventh Amendment precluded federal jurisdiction over the damages claims against the state and the individual defendants in their official capacities, and that neither the New Mexico Tort Claims Act nor defendants’ removal motion waived this immunity. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-4-4-(F). The district court found that “an Eleventh Amendment bar renders the entire action non-removable, necessitating remand of the case in its entirety,” Appellants' App. 81, relying, inter alia , on Flores v. Long , 926 F. Supp. 166 (D. N.M. 1995). Following our opinion issued this day in Flores v. Long , No. 95-2224 (10th Cir. April 1, 1997), we hold the district court remand order was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and thus we are barred from reviewing the remand order through appeal or mandamus. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) & (d); Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer , 423 U.S. 336, 349-52 (1976). We therefore DISMISS the appeal and DENY defendants’ application for a writ of mandamus. Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

Xinhua He 

Fidelity National Law Group 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(IR I947A e 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1742

JOHN R. UNTHANK; JACKIE D. UNTHANK,

 Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST, 2010 

H1,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-00100-JFM)

Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John R. Unthank, Jackie D. Unthank, Appellants Pro Se. Glenn 

Cline, Robert A. Scott, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John and Jackie Unthank appeal the district court’s 

judgment dismissing their diversity action for failure to state 

a claim and denying their motion to reinstate their case and 

amend their complaint. On appeal, the Unthanks do not challenge 

the district court’s conclusion that their complaint was 

properly dismissed for failure to state a claim because their 

claims rested on an invalid legal theory. See Edwards v. City 

of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (concluding 

that issues not raised in opening brief are deemed waived); 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in 

informal brief). Rather, the Unthanks argue only that the 

district court erred in dismissing their pro se complaint 

without advising them of their right to amend the complaint or 

providing them an opportunity to do so. We have reviewed the 

record in this case and find no reversible error on the grounds 

asserted. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 756-57 (7th Cir. 

2011) (addressing court’s obligation to advise pro se plaintiff 

regarding amendment of complaint); Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 

F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in 

denial of request to amend when litigants provided no proposed 

amendment); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 428 (4th Cir. 2006) 

(finding no abuse of discretion in denial of motion to amend 

when amendment would be futile). Accordingly, we affirm the 
3

district court’s judgment. 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. 

AFFIRMED
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

I, Leah Nivison, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reportson Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS Mortgage Securities Trust2013-GC13 (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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicingand other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the ExchangeAct periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicershave fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteriafor asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably reliedon information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, U.S. Bank National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. (f/k/a Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.), as Operating Advisor,and CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

Dated: March 24, 2022

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitizationof the depositor)
<PAGE>
 
                                   Exhibit 21

                               CRAIG CORPORATION


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant



Craig Management, Inc., a California corporation, wholly owned by Registrant.

Dimension Specialty Company, a Delaware corporation, owned by Registrant.

James J. Cotter Company & Associates, Inc., a California corporation, wholly
owned by Registrant.

Craig Food and Hospitality, Inc., a Delaware corporation, wholly-owned by
Registrant.

Hope Street Hospitality, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 50% owned by
Registrant.

Reading Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 78% voting ownership by
Registrant.

Citadel Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, 33.4% direct and indirect
voting ownership by Registrant.

The subsidiaries omitted from the foregoing list do not, considered in the
aggregate, constitute a significant subsidiary.
**Exhibit
      32**




**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
      of OrthoLogic Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
      2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), each of John M. Holliman, III, Principal Executive Officer of
      the Company, and Les M. Taeger, 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 to the best of his 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 Company.




Date:
      May
      7, 2007




/s/
                  John M. Holliman, IIIJohn
                  M. Holliman, IIIPrincipal
                  Executive Officer/s/
                  Les M. TaegerLes
                  M. TaegerChief
                  Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to OrthoLogic Corp. and will be retained
      by
      OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4591

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARKADIO DEANGEL OLIVARES-LOPEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,

Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00001-D-1)

Submitted: March 8, 2013 Decided: April 17, 2013

Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer

P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arkadio Deangel Olivares-Lopez pled guilty to 

possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of 

cocaine and aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). The district court 

sentenced him to 162 months of imprisonment. On appeal, 

Olivares-Lopez contends that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th 

Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for 

significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the advisory Sentencing Guidelines 

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence 

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When 

considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we 

take into account the totality of the circumstances. United 

States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). 

If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on 

appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Go, 

517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 
3

551 U.S. 338, 346–56 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of 

reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).

Here, Olivares-Lopez was sentenced to a properly 

calculated advisory Guidelines range sentence. The district 

court listened to the arguments of counsel and to Olivares-Lopez 

himself, and expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The 

court adequately explained its decision to sentence OlivaresLopez within his advisory sentencing range of 135-168 months, 

and we find no reason not to apply the presumption of 

reasonableness on appeal. See Go, 517 F.3d at 218. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 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
S. Con. Res. 3 Agreed to May 18, 2015

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO CELEBRATE 

BIRTHDAY OF KING KAMEHAMEHA. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor 

Center is authorized to be used for an event on June 7, 2015, 

to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I. 

(b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the conduct of 

the event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect 

of the Capitol. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
##### 



Exhibit 32 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 of OrthoLogic Corp. (the Company
) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of,
Thomas R. Trotter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Sherry A.
Sturman, 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 to
the best of his or her respective 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 financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: November 9, 2004 /s/ Thomas R. Trotter  
 /s/ Sherry A. Sturman  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to OrthoLogic Corp. and
will be retained by OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting.

      ( print page 41993)    

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence will hold a meeting on October 26-27, 2017. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *http://www.uscourts.gov/​rules-policies/​records-and-archives-rules-committees/​agenda-books.*

# DATES:

October 26, 2017—1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; October 27, 2017—8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Boston College School of Law, 885 Centre Street, Newton Centre, MA 02459.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: August 28, 2017.

Rebecca A. Womeldorf,

Rules Committee Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-18663 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00282-CV

In re Kayla Jones

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM RUNNELS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 

52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis 

Filed: June 8, 2023