alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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



In connection with the Annual Report of Creative Learning Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Christian Miller, the Companys Principal Financial Officer, certifies, 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 his knowledge:



(1)

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



(2)

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





|              |  |                                             
|------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|March 1, 2107 |  | /s/  Christian Miller                       
|              |  | Christian Miller                            
|              |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|              |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Periodic Financial Report**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of DJO Finance LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on March 28, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Vickie L. Capps, ExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i) ThisReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date: March 28, 2008                                        |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                             |   |
| /s/ Vickie L. Capps                                              |   |
| Vickie L. Capps                                                  |   |
| Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |

 

----
#### In re Petition for Prosecution of Alfred INGBER and James J. Harrington, Esq. for Criminal Contempt of Court.

No. 89 Cr. # 1 pg. 4 (JMW).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 31, 1989.

Philip LeB. Douglas, Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, New York City, for plaintiff.

James J. Harrington, Haythe & Curley, New York City, for defendant.

Jeffrey B. Sklaroff, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City.

*487MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WALKER, District Judge:

The above-referenced action is connected to a civil action, *Clifford Corp. v. Ingber,*88 Civ. 3405, formerly before this Court. On March 27, 1989, this Court dismissed the civil action for want of jurisdiction, — F.Supp. - (1989). The present action was commenced on an *ex parte*basis by plaintiffs counsel in the form of an Order to Show Cause. The Court ordered Ingber and Harrington to show cause why they should not be held in criminal contempt of this Court. The Court set February 17, 1989, as the return date for the motion.

Expressing no view on the underlying merits of the motion, the Court referred this matter to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for its consideration. On February 14, 1989, that office informed the Court that it had “agreed to review the petition for criminal contempt sanctions brought by the plaintiff. Our agreement to review the matter does not reflect any factual or legal determination that prosecution for criminal contempt will or should be brought.” 1 The Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the matter, Jeffrey B. Sklaroff, requested and received an additional thirty days to review the matter. Subsequently, he requested permission for his office to submit a letter during the week of March 27, 1989, setting forth the U.S. Attorney’s view of this petition. The Court granted that request as well.

In the meantime, two things happened. First, the Court dismissed the civil action for lack of diversity between the parties. Second, the Court reviewed the papers submitted by plaintiff in support of its petition for criminal contempt. In this endeavor, the Court was afforded significantly more time than it had been allowed when the action was initiated in the form of an *ex parte*Order to Show Cause.

The Court then received the report from the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s office. In his letter of March 30, Denton concluded that

> [ajfter conducting an investigation into [this matter], this office has determined that the facts as we understand them do not warrant a contempt prosecution of Mr. Ingber or Mr. Harrington, and we are therefore declining prosecution of this matter.

The Court’s review of the documents leads it to the same conclusion. Moreover, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the civil dispute between these parties.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the court hereby withdraws the Order to Show Cause previously entered in this matter. The above-referenced action, like its civil counterpart, is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

1

. *See*Letter to the Court from David W. Denton, Chief, Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York.
2009-2143.

#### State v. Lee.

Stark App. No. 2009CA00097, 2009-Ohio-5488. Reported at 124 Ohio St.3d 1477, 2010-Ohio-354, 921 N.E.2d 247. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**




Certifications





I,
      Lei,
      Ming, Chief Executive Officer certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dark Dynamite Inc.





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the report does 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 quarterly report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects
      the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing
      and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(c) and 15d-(e)) for the registrant and have:





a) Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
      and
      procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
      information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidates subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this report is being prepared;





b) Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures, and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      report based on such evaluation; and





c) Disclosed
      in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal period that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





a)
      All
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors
      any
      material weaknesses in internal controls (all of which do not apply);
      and





b)
      Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls, (all of which
      do
      not apply); and





Date:
      November 14, 2006








/s/
      Lei, Ming


Lei,
      Ming
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5388]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Establishment of the Federal Advisory Committee for the End-to-
End Review of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System (NCCS)

ACTION: Notice of establishment.

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

SUMMARY: The NCCS End-to-End Review is being established in consonance 
with the public interest and in accordance with the provisions of Pub. 
L. 92-463, the ``Federal Advisory Committee Act,'' Title 5 U.S.C., 
Appendix 2. This advisory committee will provide advice and 
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, in his role and the 
President's NCCS Executive Agent, regarding the full range of U.S. 
Nuclear Command and Control System (NCCS) policies, responsibilities, 
functions, management structures and capabilities to meet National and 
Departmental/Agency policy and guidance. It will identify opportunities 
to enhance system effectiveness and efficiency, identify emerging 
issues for consideration or action, and will recommend cost-effective 
changes to the system where warranted. The End-to-End Review Federal 
Advisory Committee will consist of a balanced membership of 
approximately four senior members from the private sector, appointed by 
the Secretary of Defense, and two senior members currently serving in 
governmental positions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact William L. Jones, U.S. Nuclear 
Command and Control System Support Staff, 703-681-8681.

    Dated: February 28, 2001.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-5388 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
EXHIBIT 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Allen J. Campbell, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Verso Paper Holdings LLC; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2016



/s/ Allen J. CampbellAllen J. Campbell Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*October 12, 2009*

[Cite as *10/12/2009 Case Announcements #2,*2009-Ohio-5418.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2009-1818.

#### France v. Mattingly.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of the complaint and relator’s motion for immediate stay,

It is ordered by the court that the motion for stay is denied. It is further ordered that upon consideration pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), this cause is dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor O’Donnell, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer and Cupp, JJ., dissent and would await the filing of a response.
#### City of Fitzgerald *v.*Merchants and Planters Bank.

Argued June 24,

Decided July 24, 1901.

Motion to dismiss the writ of error.

*E. W. Pyman,*for plaintiff in error. *I. Kennedy,*contra.

Lumpkin, P. J.

The question of practice presented by the motion to dismiss the writ of error in this case was directly passed on and definitely settled in the case of *Kimball*v. *Williams,*108 *Ga.*812. In view of the decision therein rendered, which was approved and followed in *Wheeler*v. *Worley,*110 *Ga.*513, the motion must be sustained. See, also, *Long*v. *Harrison,*111 *Ga.*884, and the cases cited in *Collins*v. *Carr,*Ibid. 867.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
EXHIBIT 32.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The undersigned,  Michael J. Newport,  the Chief Executive Officer and Mark
Witt,  Chief  Financial  Officer of  Mainland  Resources  Inc.,  hereby  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of Mainland  Resources  Inc.,  for fiscal year ended  February  29, 2009,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  as amended,  and that the  information  contained in the
Annual  Report  on Form  10-K  fairly  presents  in all  material  respects  the
financial condition and results of operations of Mainland Resources Inc .



Date: March 12, 2010


/s/ MICHAEL J. NEWPORT
___________________________________________
    Michael J. Newport
    President, Chief Executive Officer


/s/ MARK WITT
___________________________________________
    Mark Witt
    Chief Financial Officer,
    Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signatures
that  appear  in typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Mainland Resources Inc.
and will be retained by Mainland  Resources Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13343-13344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5232]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-958-6320-ET; HAG-01-0080; OR-10676, et al]


Cancellation of Proposed Withdrawals, and Expiration of Public 
Land Order; Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On October 30, 2000, Public Law (PL) 106-399, the Steens 
Mountain Cooperative Management and Protective Act of 2000 was enacted 
into law. As a result of the law, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
has canceled two withdrawal applications and allowed Public Land Order 
(PLO) No. 5822 to expire, in Harney County, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles R. Roy, BLM Oregon/Washington 
State Office, 503-952-6189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 30, 2000, the Steens Mountain 
Cooperative Management and Protective Act of 2000 (PL 106-399) was 
enacted into law, superseding two proposed withdrawals and PLO No. 
5822.
    A Notice of Proposed Withdrawal was published in the Federal 
Register, (64FR50531, September 17, 1999) as FR Doc. 99-23812, for the 
BLM to withdraw 619,000 acres of Federal lands, 73,900 acres of Federal 
minerals, and 37,400 acres of Federal Surface lands from the non-
discretionary public land and mining laws, for the Steens Mountain 
Area. Another Notice of Proposed Withdrawal was published in the 
Federal Register, (65FR38849, June 22, 2000) as FR Doc. 00-15781, for 
the BLM to withdraw 17,056.18 acres of public lands, and 680 acres of 
non-federal lands, from surface entry and mining, but not the mineral 
leasing, for the Diamond Craters Outstanding Natural Area/Area of 
Critical Environmental Concern. In addition, Public Land Order No. 
5822, published in the Federal Register, (46FR6947, January 22, 1981) 
as FR Doc. 81-2310, for the BLM withdrew 16,656.18 acres of Federal 
lands from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land 
laws, including the mining laws, but not

[[Page 13344]]

from mineral leasing, for the Diamond Craters Geologic Area has also 
been superseded by PL 106-399, and allowed to expire.
    The segregative effect for the Federal interests in the above 
mentioned proposed withdrawals, and the PLO, are lifted, subject to PL 
106-399, valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, 
other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law.

    Dated: February 26, 2001.
Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,
Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.
[FR Doc. 01-5232 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-U
#### Griffin *v.*Brunswick and Western Railroad Company.

Argued. May 8,

Decided May 25, 1901.

Action for damages. Before Judge Bennet. Ware superior court. November 6, 1900.

*L. A. Wilson, J. O. McDonald,*and *Atkinson & Dunwody,*for plaintiff. *Goodyear & Kay*and *S-. W. Hitch,*for defendant.

I'xsh, J.

This being an action against a railroad company for the homicide of one who was not its employee, and the evidence for the plaintiff showing that the defendant, by the running of a locomotive, car, or train, caused the death, and not being such as to require a finding that the deceased might by using ordinary care have avoided the collision by which he was killed, or that the presumption of negligence raised by law against the company was rebutted, the court en-ed in granting a nonsuit. See *Sims*v. *W. & A. R. Co.,*111 *Ga.*820, and cases cited. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2876 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2876

To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the study of the 
                     Pike National Historic Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2018

Mr. Bennet (for himself and Mr. Gardner) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the study of the 
                     Pike National Historic Trail.

    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 ``Pike National Historic Trail Study 
Act''.

SEC. 2. WESTERN STATES TRAIL STUDY.

    Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(46) Pike national historic trail.--The Pike National 
        Historic Trail, a series of routes extending approximately 
        3,664 miles, which follows the route taken by Lt. Zebulon 
        Montgomery Pike during the 1806-1807 Pike expedition that began 
        in Fort Bellefontaine, Missouri, extended through portions of 
        the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico, and 
        Texas, and ended in Natchitoches, Louisiana.''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-35.17
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.



GE Commercial Mortgage Corporation
c/o GE Capital Corp
901 Main Avenue
4th floor
Norwalk, CT 06851

RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year
2007 or applicable portion thereof (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Trustee under the servicing
agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has
been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 1, 2008

/s/ Judith Rishel
JUDITH RISHEL
Vice President


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for GE Commercial Mortgage Corp Mortgage
  Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-C1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
#### Michael B. LESANE, a/k/a Michael Bernard Lesane, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-7906.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2007.

Decided: March 29, 2007.

Michael B. Lesane, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*297Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael B. Lesane, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Lesane that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Lesane failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *See United States v. Midgette,*478 F.3d 616, 622-23 (4th Cir.2007); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985). Lesane has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 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.*