alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001017358
<NAME>                        Sprint Spectrum Finance Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,497
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,597)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 The Houston Exploration Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James F. Westmoreland, Chief Accounting 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:

     (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ James F. Westmoreland
--------------------------------------------------
Name:  James F. Westmoreland
Title: Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
       The Houston Exploration Company

August 12, 2002
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 Annual Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earnest Mathis,
Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director 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, to the best of my 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; 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:    September 26, 2008
                                            /s/ Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                            -----------------------
                                            Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                            Chief Executive Officer and Director


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          53,066
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,354
<INVENTORY>                                     51,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,126
<PP&E>                                         647,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,641,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,995
<BONDS>                                      1,084,306
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       429,950
<OTHER-SE>                                    (25,093)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,641,288
<SALES>                                        157,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,589
<CGS>                                           38,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,213
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,120
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 93
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        93
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 1

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-09-00294-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ARLEN RAY TENBERG

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Arlen Ray Tenberg, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the

above cause on June 1, 2009, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in

denying relator’s motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. Mandamus relief may be granted

if the relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial; and (2)

there is no adequate remedy at law. See Deleon v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). The relator must have a “clear right” to the relief

sought and the merits of the relief sought must be “beyond dispute.” See id. “The
2

requirement of a clear legal right necessitates that the law plainly describes the duty to be

performed such that there is no room for the exercise of discretion.” See id.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 3rd day of June, 2009.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer Pursuant
  to Securities Exchange Act Rules 
  13a-14 and 15d-14 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of UltraGuard Water Systems Corp on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Ken Fielding, President and Chief Executive Officer of UltraGuard Water
Systems Corp, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarban-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge

| | (1) | the quarterly report of UltraGuard Water Systems Corp for the period
      ended June 30, 2004, 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 such quarterly report of UltraGuard Water
      Systems Corp for the period ended June 30, 2004 fairly represents, in all
      material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of
      UltraGuard Water Systems Corp.



/s/ Ken Fielding
  Ken Fielding 
  President and Chief Executive Officer

---
#### Lazaro Ruiz ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71512.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Lazaro Ruiz Alvarez, Orange, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Ann Carroll Varnon, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*956Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Lazaro Ruiz Alvarez seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Ruiz Alvarez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013, by andamong GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer and Certificate Administrator, LNRPartners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as OperatingAdvisor and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through GSMS Certificates Series 2013-GCJ14 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.07 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreementduring such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6138

JAMES E. SIGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cv-00198-WCB) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 29, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Sigley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: James E. Sigley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sigley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<CASH>                                           12,599,944
<SECURITIES>                                     17,992,197
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3,326,920
<ALLOWANCES>                                        242,102
<INVENTORY>                                         244,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   57,073,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                          15,237,728
<COMMON>                                              1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                      11,250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       15,339,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     57,073,093
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5,351,158
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4,131,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    100,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,290,405
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (170,330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (49,192)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (121,138)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (121,138)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        $(0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        $(0.05)

        


</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Allen Ray Furman v. Furman

February 9, 1983

Case No. (Law) 7556

By JUDGE DONALD H. KENT

Allen Ray Furman has filed a motion for declaratory judgment seeking an order of this Court recognizing the validity of a decree of divorce entered by the Civil Court of the Republic of Haiti on July 23, 1980.

The plaintiff is a foreign service officer who resided in Washington, D.C. for several years prior to being transferred by government order to Haiti in September 1978. He remained in Haiti for a period of time following the Haitian divorce and presently is stationed in Rome, Italy with the foreign service. The defendant is a resident of Virginia and made no appearance in the Haitian proceeding.

The general rule in most American jurisdictions is that an American court will refuse to recognize a foreign divorce unless at least one of the spouses was a good-faith domiciliary in the foreign nation at the time the divorce was rendered. Swisher, "Are Foreign Migratory Divorces Valid in Virginia?" *Family Law Section Newsletter,*volume 3, number 3, page 7 (1982).

The plaintiff failed to present any facts which would indicate that he intended to remain in Haiti for an indefinite period. The only fact presented by the plaintiff was that he was physically present in Haiti as an officer of the United States Government. He *83maintained his U.S. citizenship and continued to pay taxes in the United States while in Haiti.

Being employed in governmental service in a civilian capacity, irrespective of length of time, normally does not bring about a change in domicile for purposes of divorce jurisdiction, in the absence of clear proof of a concurrent intention to abandon the old domicile and acquire a new one. Annot., 129 A.L.R. 1391 (1940), 36 A.L.R.2d 778 (1954).

Ms. da Cruz [counsel for the defendant] should prepare an order which indicates that this Court does not recognize the Haitian decree as valid under the laws of this Commonwealth.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-QSB (continued)

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended                  Nine Months Ended
                                                    September 30,                      September 30,
                                               2003              2002              2003              2002
                                               ----              ----              ----              ----
                                                          (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                          <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
BASIC

Net Income                                   $    567          $    496          $  1,568          $  1,340
/ Weighted Average Shares                       2,676             2,627             2,656             2,620
                                             --------          --------          --------          --------

Basic Earnings Per Share                     $   0.21          $   0.19          $   0.59          $   0.51
                                             ========          ========          ========          ========

DILUTED

Net Income                                   $    567          $    496          $  1,568          $  1,340
/ Weighted Average Shares                       2,724             2,651             2,701             2,644
                                             --------          --------          --------          --------
Diluted Earnings Per Share                   $   0.21          $   0.19          $   0.58          $   0.51
                                             ========          ========          ========          ========
</TABLE>

                                       27
#### In the Matter of Joseph Guarino, Appellant, v New York State Racing & Wagering Board, Respondent.

Submitted December 17, 2007;

decided February 7, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                              As adoptedpursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-oxley act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Cell Tech International Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marta C. Carpenter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



                                ---------------------------------------------
                                Marta C. Carpenter
                                Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting
                                Officer

                                DATED: May 15, 2003