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





In connection with the Report of CoConnect, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brad M. Bingham, Esq., Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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.








/s/ Brad M. Bingham, Esq.


Brad M. Bingham, Esq.


Interim Chief Executive Officer





November 18, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GERMAN CHAVIRA AND

ALEJANDRO FABELA, BOTH

INDIVIDUALLY AND BOTH D/B/A

EL PASO PAVEMENT SPECIALIST

AND EL PASO PAVEMENT

SPECIALIST, LLC,

Appellants,

v.

QUARRY HILLS MANAGEMENT,

LLC,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00169

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2011

- 397)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5 , on the judgment and all

costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER , 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Rivera, J., not participating)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julius L. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30705

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 14, 2011.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Julius L. Jackson, Florence, CO, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Julius L. Jackson, federal prisoner # 05408-028, appeals from the district court’s denial of a motion he filed for co-ram nobis or audita querela relief. He also moves for appointment of counsel; that motion is DENIED.

In his district court motion, Jackson attacked the validity of his conviction and sentence. Jackson’s motion could have arisen only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See Tolliver v. Dobre,*211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000). The district court, however, lacked jurisdiction to so construe Jackson’s motion because he previously had filed a § 2255 motion that was disposed of on the merits and did not obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. *See Hooker v. Sivley,*187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1999). Jackson’s appeal is “from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” *United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994).

APPEAL DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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 32.2


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 Greystone Logistics, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William W. Rahhal, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




October 20, 2010

/s/ William W. RahhalWilliam W. RahhalInterim Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
Exhibit 10.8(h) 


EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 


          THIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this 16th day of April, 2007 to that certain EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of November 30, 1999, as
heretofore amended (collectively, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between ROBERT HENSLEY (“Employee”) and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (“Employer”).


                FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the Employment Agreement, hereby amend the Employment
Agreement as follows: 


          1. Subject to earlier termination otherwise set forth in the Employment Agreement, the last day of the Employment Period shall be January 31, 2009. 


          2. Effective March 4, 2007, Employee’s Base Salary shall be $470,000.00.


          Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the
terms of the remainder of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respective meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This
Amendment shall hereafter be deemed a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes. The terms of employment set forth in this Amendment have been approved by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Employer. 


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 


JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. 

	By:	     /s/
        Charles D. Frazer                              

   
	 
  	      /s/
    Robert Hensley

	 	 Charles D. Frazer,
  	
ROBERT HENSLEY
  
	 	 Senior Vice President – General Counsel
EXHIBIT 35.1
            SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
     GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of
February  27,  2006,  (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),  among
Residential  Asset Mortgage  Products,  Inc., as depositor,  GMAC Mortgage,  LLC
(formerly  GMAC  Mortgage  Corporation),  as  servicer,  and Wells  Fargo  Bank,
National Association, as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material  respects  throughout
such  period.

 IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  has duly  executed  this
Certificate this 26th day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      -------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
EXHIBIT 12.1

Indalex Holdings Finance, Inc.  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  (in thousands)

|                                                                               |  | Predecessor 1 |        | Predecessor 2 |   | Successor |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------- | ------ | ------------- | - | --------- | -
|
|
|
|
|Earnings:                                                                      |  |               |        |               |   |           |  
|Pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations                               |  | $             | 22,049 |               | $ | 37,443    |  
|Less AAG equity income                                                         |  | $             | (7,869 | )             | $ | (14,807   | )
|Plus AAG Dividend                                                              |  | $             | 3,152  |               | $ |          |  
|Fixed charges (from below)                                                     |  | $             | 10,860 |               | $ | 10,918    |  
|Earnings available for fixed charges                                           |  | $             | 28,192 |               | $ | 33,554    |  
|Fixed charges:                                                                 |  |               |        |               |   |           |  
|Interest expense (including debt issuance costs amortized to interest expense) |  | $             | 8,659  |               | $ | 8,587     |  
|Capitalized interest                                                           |  | $             |       |               | $ |          |  
|Interest component of rent expense                                             |  | $             | 2,201  |               | $ | 2,331     |  
|Total fixed charges                                                            |  | $             | 10,860 |               | $ | 10,918    |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                             |  |               | 2.6    |               |   | 3.07      |  

Fixed charges include interest expense (including amortization of deferred financing costs) and an estimate of operating rental interest expense, approximately
30%, which management believes is representative of the interest component. Earnings before fixed charges were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $39,571 in the period from February 2, 2006
to December 31, 2006; and were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $16,225 in the year ended December 31, 2007.

---



QuickLinks
J

- A26023

- 14

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SANDRA A. CHRISTMAN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF TH E ESTATE OF ESTER I. STRAUSE, DE CEASED, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MANOR CARE OF WEST R EADING PA, LLC, D/B/A MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES

– WEST READING NORTH, AND MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND HCR MANORCA RE, INC. AND MANORCARE INC. AND H CR HEALTHCARE, LLC, AND HCR II HEALTHCARE, LLC, AND HCR III HEALTHCARE, LLC AND HCR IV HEALTHCARE, LLC
Appellants No. 1226 MDA 2013

Appeal from the Order June 13 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 12

- 4389

BEFORE: BOWES, J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JANUARY 05, 2016
I agree with the Majority’s application of Taylor v. Extendicare
Health Facilities, Inc. , 113 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal granted , 122 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2015) to this case. However, I cannot agree with
footnote 3, where the Majority concludes, albeit in dicta , that our SupremeJ

- A26023

- 14

- 2

-

Court’s recent decision in Wert v. Manorcare of Carlisle PA, LLC , --- A.3d

--- , 2015 WL 6499141 (Pa. 2015) (plurality) does not apply in this case. 1
As I recently explained, Wert held that an arbitration agreement
which required the arbitration forum to apply the NAF Code of Procedure,

was unenforceable because “the NAF Code states that only the NAF can
administer its own code, [rendering] this [claus e] an ‘integral and non

severable’ provision of the arbitration agreement.” MacPherson v. Magee
Mem. Hosp. for Convalescence , --- A.3d

--- , 2015 WL 7571937, at *15
(Pa. Super. 2015) ( en banc ) (Mundy, J., dissenting), quoting Wert , supra at *5, 10.
In this case, like the agreement at issue in MacPherson , the
arbitration agreement states that whoever the arbitration panel is, “ [t]he
Panel shall apply NAF’s Code of Procedure[.]” Memorandum of Law in
Support of Appellant’s Preliminary Objections, 8/17/ 12, Exhibit B, at 2. In
my view, consistent with our Supreme Court’s conclusion in Wert , the
exclusivity of the choice of law in the arbitration agreement renders this
provision “integral and non

- severable”. Wert , supra at *5, 10. As a result,

____________________________________________ 1 Although Wert is a plurality opinion, “ three justices out of five in Wert agreed that the NAF Code issue rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable.” MacPherson , supra at *16. “Thus, the por tion of Wert pertaining to the requirement in Rule 1(A) [of the NAF Code of Procedure] that NAF administer its own Code, which is central to the conclusion in Wert that the arbitration agreement therein was unenforceable, is precedential and binding on thi s Court.” Id.J

- A26023

- 14

- 3

-

I cannot agree with the Majority’s conclusion that Wert does not apply in
this case. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in the result only.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           6,238                  10,459
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,475                   4,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                       467                     277
<INVENTORY>                                      5,943                   3,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,087                  19,044
<PP&E>                                          19,320                  13,382
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,836                   2,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,243                  30,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,326                   5,382
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                   2,400
<COMMON>                                        19,917                     665
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                     180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,243                  30,141
<SALES>                                         60,496                  38,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,496                  38,881
<CGS>                                           38,929                  25,721
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,929                  25,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    20                      20
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,562                   1,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,948                   5,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,673                   2,078
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,275                   3,458
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,275                   3,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29                    1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28                    1.25
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31

          CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K

      Re: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc.
      Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-R1

I, John P. Grazer, 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 Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-R1 (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 statement required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB and except as disclosed in the Exchange
Act Periodic Reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
Pooling and Servicing agreement 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: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, FIS Tax Services, American Security Insurance Company, Standard
Guaranty Insurance Company and Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC.


By: /s/ John P. Grazer
    ---------------------------------
Name: John P. Grazer
Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 26, 2007
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00096-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF GLADYS MILDRED STORTINI,

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

From the County Court at Law No. 2

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 732-G

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 29, 2021, Appellant Frank Allen filed a notice of appeal indicating his 

desire to appeal from the trial court’s Order Appointing Permanent Guardian of the 

Person signed on February 12, 2021, Order Creating Management Trust for the Benefit of 

Gladys Mildred Stortini signed on February 12, 2021, and an Order Granting Permanent 

Injunction signed on April 23, 2021.

By letter dated June 15, 2021, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the 

docketing statement was past due and must be filed within 21 days from the date of the 

letter. The June 15, 2021, letter warned Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed 
In the Guardianship of Stortini Page 2

without further notification unless, within 21 days from the date of the letter, a docketing 

statement was filed. No docketing statement was received and filed. We also note that 

Appellant has not paid for this Court’s fees associated with the appeal, nor has he paid 

to have the reporter’s record prepared.

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R. APP.

P. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b); § 51.941(a) (West 2005); and § 51.208 (West Supp. 

2011). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off 

all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The write-off of the fees from the 

accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees owed 

by Appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b).

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Wright1

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 4, 2021

[CV06]

1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by 

assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 

75.003.
#### Brian Cohen, Respondent, v Michail Z. Hack et al., Appellants.

[986 NYS2d 482]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 28, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim and to compel arbitration of the breach of contract claim, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion granted to the extent of dismissing the legal malpractice claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff does not assert that defendants’ conduct caused the result of his dispute with his disability insurer to be worse than it would have been. Rather, he argues that defendants, in bad faith and without full disclosure, pressured him into changing from an hourly retainer to a contingency retainer. The only loss he alleges is the additional fees owed to counsel as a result of changing the retainer. This is fatal to his claim for malpractice *(see Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP v Longmire,*106 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2013], *lv dismissed*21 NY3d 1059 [2013]; *see also Sumo Container Sta. v Evans, Orr, Pacelli, Norton & Laffan,*278 AD2d 169, 170-171 [1st Dept 2000]).

The court correctly held that, despite the submission to arbitration in the retainer agreement, arbitration of the contract claim was inappropriate under the circumstances. The retainer agreement provided for arbitration under part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR). However, the gravamen of the contract claim is that it is invalid because of defendants’ misconduct in inducing plaintiff to sign it, or because it created a windfall for defendants. By the express terms of the rules the parties chose to govern their arbitration, *461claims such as this are not arbitrable since 22 NYCRR 137.1 (b) (3) provides that part 137 does not apply to “claims involving substantial legal questions, including professional malpractice or misconduct” *(see Mahler v Campagna,*60 AD3d 1009, 1012 [2d Dept 2009]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jack L. Alexander,  Senior Vice President of MidAmerican  Energy Company (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period
          ended  December  31,  2003  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  March 3, 2004




                              /s/ Jack L. Alexander
                              ----------------------------
                                  Jack L. Alexander
                                Senior Vice President
                              (co-chief executive officer)