alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report of Consortium
Service  Management  Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report"),  I, K. Bruce Jones, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  May 15, 2006
                                                      /s/ K. Bruce Jones
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     K. Bruce Jones
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
### MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 437TH JUD ICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GRE ETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on November 12, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Robert Lane Marsh, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appe llee(s)

No. 04

- 12

- 00257

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2009CR0761

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’ s opinion of this date, our opinion and judgment of May 1, 2013, is WITHDRAWN, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, i n this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on January 12, 2015

. KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
#### Leonor Datil Perez, Appellant, v Time Moving and Storage, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted January 7, 2008;

decided March 13, 2008

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the annual report of AmericanBiogenetic Sciences, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO and CFO 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. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman

Dated: April 13, 2011

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2648 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2648

  To reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban 
        Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2011

    Ms. Hirono (for herself, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Ms. Hanabusa) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban 
        Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

    Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4243), as added by section 513 of 
Public Law 106-569 (114 Stat. 2969), is amended by striking ``fiscal 
years'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``fiscal 
years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.''.

SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

    Section 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 
(12 U.S.C. 1715z-13b), as added by section 514 of Public Law 106-569 
(114 Stat. 2989), is amended as follows:
            (1) Authorization of appropriations.--In subsection (j)(7), 
        by striking ``fiscal years'' and all that follows and inserting 
        the following: ``fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 
        2016.''.
            (2) Authority.--In subsection (b), by striking ``or as a 
        result of a lack of access to private financial markets''.
            (3) Eligible housing.--In subsection (c), by striking 
        paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraph:
            ``(2) Eligible housing.--The loan will be used to 
        construct, acquire, refinance, or rehabilitate 1- to 4-family 
        dwellings that are standard housing and are located on Hawaiian 
        Home Lands.''.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT 35.1

ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
OF THE SERVICERFOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of The Bank of
Nova Scotia, as Servicer and Cash Manager under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement, respectively, do hereby
certify that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer and Cash Manager during the period from November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2015,
and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement was conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer and Cash Manager have fulfilled all of their obligations under
the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement, respectively, in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this
Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this 29th day of January, 2016.



|By: | /s/ Andrew Branion                                                 
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | Andrew Branion
        Executive Vice-President and Group Treasurer
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 1205

____________ STEPHEN TODD BOOKER,

Petitioner,

vs. JULIE L. JONES, etc., Respondent.
[January 30, 2018]

PER CURIAM.
Stephen Todd Booker petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v.

Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State
( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This
Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. This Court stayed Booker’s case pending the disposition of Hitchcock v.

State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017)

. After this- 2

-

Court decided Hitchcock , Booker responded to this Court’s order to show cause
arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Booker’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Booker is not entitled to relief. Booker was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a
vote of eight to four. Booker v. State , 773 So. 2d 1079 , 1086 (Fla. 2001).

Booker’s sentence of death became final in 2001

. Booker v. Florida , 532 U.S.
1033 (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Booker’s sentence. See

Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we deny Booker’s petition.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Booker , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so

ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
PARIENTE, J ., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock

v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now
final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my diss enting
opinion in Hitchcock

. Original Proceeding

– Habeas Corpus , Alachua County, Case No. 011977CF002332AXXXXX- 3

-

Ann Finnell of Finnell, McGuinness, Nezami & Andux, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida; and Billy H. Nolas , Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Respond ent
Brian Watt bonus payment letter dated December 1, 2010



 Exhibit 10.16 

 
 Private & Confidential 

 
 Mr B Watt 

[personal address information] 

 
 1st December 2010 

 
 Dear Brian 
  
 On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am delighted to confirm that the Board have decided to award you a special one off bonus
to show their appreciation of what has been accomplished and the loyalty you have shown to the Company over what has been an extended and testing period in the Company’s history. The Board anticipates your continued loyalty and endeavour over
the coming period as we grow the business both geographically and by acquisition. 
  
 The main elements of this bonus are as follows:- 
  

	1.	You will receive a one off bonus payment of $225,000. This will be paid in January 2011 using the relevant exchange rate at the time. 


 

	2.	You are required to use 1/3 of this bonus, after tax, to purchase Innospec stock in the open market. This should be done in the first stock trading window after you
receive this payment. Please make sure you let Nicola Earl in Ellesmere Port have the details of your stock purchase so the necessary filings can be completed. 


 

	3.	You will be required to hold the stock purchased in point 2 above for a minimum of 1 year. 

  

	4.	If you decide to end your employment with Innospec of your own accord, within two years of receiving this bonus, the Company reserves the right to require you to repay
some or all of this bonus payment. Any such repayment will be at the absolute discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board and you will be notified of their decision in writing. 


 
 Please sign the attached copy of this letter and return to Cathy Hessner in
Ellesmere Port, to confirm your acceptance of the above terms. 
  
 On
behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution and loyalty to our company to date and to wish you continued success in the future as we focus on driving the business forward. 

 
 Kind regards 

	
	 /s/    BOB
BEW        


	 Bob Bew

	 Chairman
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4102

___________

Eric Lynn Self, *

Plaintiff/Appellant, *

 v. * District Court for the

Auburn Steel Company, Inc.; * 

Sumitomo Corporation of America; * [UNPUBLISHED]

SC Steel Investment, Inc.; Yamato *

Kogyo (U.S.A.) Corporation, doing *

business as Arkansas Steel *

Associates, an association of *

partners, *

Defendants/Appellee.

*

* Appeal from the United States

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

___________

Submitted: May 22, 1997

 Filed: June 6, 1997 

 

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Self sued his employer, Auburn Steel Company, in January 1996

on the theory that certain employment actions affecting him were in

retaliation for his father's participation in a 1991 lawsuit against the

company under the Age Discrimination in 
The Honorable William R. Wilson, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Eastern Arkansas.

-2-

Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1997). The district court1

granted summary judgment for Auburn Steel, and we affirm. 

Self’s complaint alleged a violation of the retaliation provision of

Title VII. Title VII makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate on

the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, or religion, see 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(a), and it prohibits an employer from retaliating against an

employee on the basis that

he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment

practice by [Title VII], or because he has made a charge,

testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII]. 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (1997). Self made no factual allegations and

produced no evidence related to a case alleging discrimination on the basis

of race, sex, color, religion or national origin. The district court was

therefore correct in dismissing this claim.

Sometime after his complaint was filed Self moved to amend it to

include a cause of action for retaliation under the ADEA. The ADEA

prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee or applicant

for employment who

has opposed any practice made unlawful by [the ADEA], or

because such individual . . . has made a charge, testified,

assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,

proceeding, or litigation under [the ADEA].
Self indicated in his notice of appeal that he was not appealing that portion of 2

the court's order which denied his motion to amend.

-3-

29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (1997). The district court denied the motion to amend

without prejudice, but went on to consider his claim as if he had brought

it under the ADEA. 

2

Assuming the ADEA retaliation claim is properly before us, we

conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment

in favor of Auburn Steel because Self failed to produce evidence sufficient

to show a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 623(d).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
| (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 to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013, by and among Banc ofAmerica Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as MasterServicer, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, AuthenticatingAgent and Custodian, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor andDeutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass- Through Certificates Series 2013-C11 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement,I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services dohereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executedthis Certificate as of the 28th dayof February 2018.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Annual Report of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard Rubin

CEO, CFO and ChairmanDated: March 30, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
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, 2007 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 28, 2007
                                        /s/ Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                        -----------------------
                                        Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Director


<PAGE>
#### Okechukwu Mummee AMADI, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Craig ROBINSON; Wes Williamson; James Hayes; Dean Hoth; Mark Johns, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-30381

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 17, 2008.

Okechukwu Mummee Amadi, Oakdale, LA, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Okechukwu Mummee Amadi, an immigration detainee, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court dismissed Amadi’s civil rights action, filed under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), for failure to state a claim, and it also denied Amadi’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal. In order to obtain leave to proceed IFP, Amadi must show that he is a pauper, and he must raise a nonfrivolous issue. *See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t,*811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir.1986).

Amadi argues in conclusory fashion that his complaint states a constitutional claim. Amadi’s second amended complaint, however, contains no allegations of personal involvement on the part of the only named defendant, nor does the second amended complaint contain allegations of a causal connection between the defendant’s acts or omissions and the claimed violation of Amadi’s constitutional rights. Amadi fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue in his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. *See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); *Lozano v. Smith,*718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th Cir.1983).

Amadi’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, his request for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Amadi’s complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See *Adepeg*
      *816
      *ba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Amadi is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any ■civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated February 22, 2002 included in this Form 10-K, into American
Biogenetic Sciences, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8
(File Nos. 33-35992, 33-39683, 33-51240, 33-65416, 333-09473, 333-45644,
333-59351 and 333-93071), and previously filed Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (File Nos. 333-13615, 333-13619, 333-13623, 333-14447, 333-36106, 333-36110,
333-36116, 333-59345, 333-60117 and 333-69735).





/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Melville, New York
March 25, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00292-CV

IN RE RONNIE TURNER RELATOR

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 25, 2010

 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.