alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35 (d)
Logo (National City Mortgage)


National City Mortgage Co.
A Subsidiary of National City Bank of Indiana
3232 Newmark Drive * Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Telephone: (937) 910-1200


Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1820
Dayton, Ohio 45401-1820


Officer Certification


RE: See attached for series (Exhibit A)


I, T. Jackson Case, Jr., hereby certify to DB Structured Products, Inc., that I
am a duly elected Executive Vice President of National City Mortgage
Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio
(the "Company") and further as follows:


     (i)   A review of the activities of the Company during the immediately
           preceding calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) and of its
           performance under the Agreement and any applicable Reconstitution
           Agreement during such period has been made under such officer's
           supervision, and


     (ii)  to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the
           Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement and
           any applicable Reconstitution Agreement in all material respects
           throughout such calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) or, if
           there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any
           material respect, specifically identifying each such failure known to
           such officer and the nature and the status thereof.


National City Mortgage

Certified by: /s/ T Jackson Case, Jr.
Name:   T Jackson Case, Jr.
Date:   2/14/2007/
Title:  Executive Vice President

No one Cares More !


(page)


Exhibit A

V31     DBALT 2006-AB2
V44     DBALT 2006-AB4
V15     DBALT 2006-AF1
V06     DBALT 2006-AR1
V46      DBALT 2006-AR5
X64     DBALT 2005-1
811     DS STRUCTURED PRODUCTS
960     DBALT 2003-1
978     DBALT 2003-3
771     DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
916     DMSI 2003-1
440     DMSI 2004-1
465     DMSI 2004-2
777     DMSI 2004-4
W43     DBALT 2005-4
W62     DBALT 2005-5
W67     DBALT 2005-6
W27     i DBALT 2005-AR1
W52     DBALT 2005-AR2
X74     DBALT 2005-2
W04     DBALT 2005-3
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 Super Luck, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended November 30, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman

January 23, 2007
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northport Investments,
  Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
  2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Richard Wang, 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard Wang
  Richard Wang 
  Chief Financial Officer

August 7, 2003

---
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April 

9, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00130-CV

IN RE LEA BERNSEN BROWN, LEON GARRICK BERNSEN, LYNN 

BERNSEN ALLISON, DOUGLAS ALLISON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A 

THE LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS A. ALLISON, Relators 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 281st District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-39795 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On February 13, 2019, relators Lea Bernsen Brown, Leon Garrick Bernsen, 

Lynn Bernsen Allison, Douglas Allison, Individually and d/b/a The Law Office of 

Douglas A. Allison filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t 
2 

Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, 

relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Christine Weems, presiding judge of 

the 281st District Court of Harris County, to (1) vacate her February 5, 2019 order 

denying relators’ plea in abatement and motion to abate, and (2) enter an order 

granting relators’ motion to abate.

Generally, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial 

court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy at law, 

such as an appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) 

(orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) 

(per curiam).

Relator has not shown that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. We 

therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant.
Exhibit 32.1


Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Direct Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Yuejian (James) Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Andrew X. Wang, 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 to the best of our 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: August 15, 2011



/s/ Yuejian (James) WangYuejian (James) Wang

Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 15, 2011



/s/ Andrew X. WangAndrew X. Wang

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
1

The Honorable Owen M. Panner, United States District Judge for the District

of Oregon, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3030

___________

Charles Gassoway, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Metropolitan St. Louis * District of Missouri.

Psychiatric Center, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2000

Filed: July 10, 2000

___________

Before BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and

PANNER,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Gassoway sued the Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center (MPC),

claiming, as relevant here, that he was terminated on the basis of his race in violation

of 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), and of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C.
2The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

§ 2000e-2(a), § 2000e-5(f). The district court2 dismissed the Title VII claim because

Mr. Gassoway did not file his action within 90 days of receiving his right-to-sue letter

from the EEOC, as § 2000e-5(f) requires, and the factual record completely supports

the district court's action. 

The district court dismissed Mr. Gassoway's § 1981 claim on the ground that the

MPC was an arm of the state of Missouri, and thus entitled to eleventh amendment

immunity, because its sole source of funding was from the state and because officers

of the state managed its operations in every particular. See Sherman v. Curators of

the University of Missouri, 16 F.3d 860, 863-64 (8th Cir. 1994). The factual record

completely supports this conclusion as well.

Mr. Gassoway argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 1981 claim

with prejudice, evidently wishing to file it, if he can, in state court at some point. Since

a dismissal on the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction, however, with or without

prejudice, cannot act as a bar to a later suit in the Missouri courts, see Kulinski v.

Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 112 F.3d 368, 373, 373 n.3 (8th Cir. 1997), see also

18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and

Procedure: Jurisdiction § 4436, at 339 (1981), we detect no error here.

We therefore affirm the district court in every respect. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3546 

To amend the Small Business Act to make permanent the Community 

Express Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 

Mr. SESTAK (for himself, Ms. BORDALLO, and Mr. KAGEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to make permanent the 

Community Express Program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Lend5 ing Promotion Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMUNITY EXPRESS PROGRAM. 

7 Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 636(a)) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating the second paragraph (32), 

10 as added by section 208 of the Military Reservist 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3546 IH

1 and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and 

2 Opportunity Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–186; 122 

3 Stat. 631), as paragraph (33); and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(34) COMMUNITY EXPRESS PROGRAM.— 

6 ‘‘(A) PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT.—The 

7 Administrator shall carry out a Community Ex8 press Program in accordance with this para9 graph. 

10 ‘‘(B) ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM.—Ex11 cept as otherwise provided under this para12 graph, the Administrator shall carry out the 

13 Community Express Program in the same man14 ner as the Community Express Pilot Program 

15 of the Administration, as in effect on Sep16 tember 8, 2009. 

17 ‘‘(C) NONAPPLICABILITY OF PILOT PRO18 GRAM LIMITATIONS.—No limitation under para19 graph (25)(A) applies to the Community Ex20 press Program under this paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Dated:  3/29/2007                                                                            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By:         /s/ Bruce Kaiserman Title:Vice PresidentCredit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.I, Bruce Kaiserman, 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 Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. CSFB Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-3 (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; and5.  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.Bruce Kaiserman**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A, as CustodianLaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianSelect Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer and Special ServicerU.S. Bank National Association, as TrusteeWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CustodianWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as ServicerThe Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, as Successor in interest to J.P. Morgan Trust Company, as Custodian
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-40969

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GENE ALLEN LOCKABY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-235

- - - - - - - - - -

June 12, 1996

Before KING, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gene Lockaby, #4294-078, appeals the denial of his motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his

sentence. Mr. Lockaby contends that double jeopardy barred his

prosecution for drug-related offenses following civil forfeiture

proceedings stemming from the same criminal activity. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
No. 95-40969

- 2 -

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the same reasons

given by the district court. Lockaby v. United States, No. 4:95-

CV-235 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
 
 
 The undersigned, Michael R. Haynes, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Collectors Universe, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Quarterly Report"), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
    
 Date: February 17, 2004

/s/ MICHAEL R. HAYNESMichael R. HaynesChief Executive OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Collectors Universe, Inc. and will be retained by Collectors Universe, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas May 5, 2021 No. 04-20-00347-CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.A.C., A CHILD From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-06011 Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellee’s motion to dismiss and/or affirm is CARRIED WITH THE APPEAL. Appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief is due on or before June 15, 2021
.

_________________________________ Irene Rios, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of May, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3251 

To repeal certain provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to Federal 

employees’ official time and labor organization activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2009 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia (for himself, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

HARPER, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. LATTA, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. 

RADANOVICH, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. ISSA, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. CAMPBELL, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. LINDER, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. 

FLEMING, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. 

BRADY of Texas, Mr. STEARNS, and Mr. COBLE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To repeal certain provisions of title 5, United States Code, 

relating to Federal employees’ official time and labor 

organization activities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employee Ac5 countability Act of 2009’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3251 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO OF2 FICIAL TIME. 

3 Subsections (a) and (c) of section 7131 of title 5, 

4 United States Code, are repealed. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 133366 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133366 COA: 271382 Wayne CC: 96-001138-01 LAMARR MONSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corwin Tyrell WOODSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6732.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

Corwin Tyrell Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corwin Tyrell Woodson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woodson 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.*
Exhibit 32.1



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) for the year ended May 31, 2004 of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
(the Company) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Thomas A. Hyde, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Report is in full compliances 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 operation of the Company.



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Thomas A. Hyde,
Jr.                                  
|                                                            
|Thomas A. Hyde, Jr. Chief Executive Officer November 8, 2005
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSEPH J. GRANT,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and CONSUMER SERVICES, 

DIVISION OF LICENSING,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2561

[December 13, 2018]

Appeal from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

Division of Licensing; L.T. Case Nos. W 1178420 and CW 201604964.

Joseph J. Grant, Pembroke Pines, pro se.

Karin M. Byrne, Senior Attorney, Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Division of Licensing, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.