alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



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 INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA NETWORK, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Verdiramo, Chief Executive 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 my 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:  February 14, 2005





By: /s/ Richard J. Verdiramo

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

Richard J. Verdiramo, President and CEO
Order entered January 13 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00650
- CV SARAH BUCKLEW, Appellant

V. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS TRUSTEE FOR CIT FOR CIT HOM E

EQUITY LOAN TRUST 20 03
- 1, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 19
- 01018
- C



### O RDER By letter dated November 27, 2019 the Court directed appellant to file an amended brief in compliance with r ule 38 of the Texas Rules of Procedure within ten days. To date, appellant has failed to file an amended brief. Therefore, we ORDER the appeal submitted on appellant’s November 7, 2019 brief. Appellee’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this ord er.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### § 213.37 Penalties.

Failure of the lessee to comply with any provisions of the lease, of the operating regulations, of the regulations in this part, orders of the Area Director or his representative, or of the orders of the supervisor or his representative, shall subject the lease to cancellation by the Secretary of the Interior or the lessee to a penalty of not more than $1,617 per day for each day the terms of the lease, the regulations, or such orders are violated, or to both such penalty and cancellation: *Provided,* That the lessee shall be entitled to notice and hearing, within 30 days after such notice, with respect to the terms of the lease, regulations, or orders violated, which hearing shall be held by the supervisor, whose findings shall be conclusive unless an appeal be taken to the Secretary of the Interior within 30 days after notice of the supervisor's decision, and the decision of the Secretary of the Interior upon appeal shall be conclusive.

[22 FR 10599, Dec. 24, 1957, as amended at 81 FR 42481, June 30, 2016; 82 FR 7652, Jan. 23, 2017; 83 FR 5195, Feb. 6, 2018; 84 FR 15101, Apr. 15, 2019; 85 FR 9369, Feb. 19, 2020; 86 FR 7348, Jan. 28, 2021; 87 FR 13156, Mar. 9, 2022; 88 FR 13022, Mar. 2, 2023; 89 FR 18363, Mar. 13, 2024]
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# USS America hosts Japanese Sailors in San Diego for Dawn Blitz

By Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jacob Holloway

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News/Articles
Exhibit 35.1




Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Mark Kaczynski, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 22, 2012 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2012-A Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 27th day of June, 2014.




/s/ Mark Kaczynski_________________


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3857]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cooperative Research Group on High-Efficiency 
Dilute Gasoline Engine II

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 19, 2011, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research 
Institute--Cooperative Research Group on High-Efficiency Dilute 
Gasoline Engine II (``HEDGE II'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Chrysler Group, LLC, Auburn Hills, MI, has 
been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and HEDGE II intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 19, 2009, HEDGE II filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on April 2, 2009 (74 FR 15003)
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 4, 
2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act December 17, 2010 (75 FR 79024)

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-3857 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY ALLEN OSBORNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00057-jct-mfu-1; 1:09-cv-80146-jct)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Allen Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis H. Lee, 

COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Tazewell, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Allen Osborne 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 appealability 

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Osborne has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Osborne’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y

Ref: 8P-AR 

### Mr. Bowen Call Division of 

### Air Quality REG ION 8 1595 Wynkoop S treet DENVER, CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www

. epa.gov/region08



### JUL 2 

### 4 2013

Utah Department of Environmental Quality Po st Office Box 144820 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 Dear Mr. Call : Thank you for submitting the Utah 20 1 2 Air Monitoring Netwo rk Plan, w hich you sent by email on June 5, 2013. As s tated in section 1. 1 of the network p lan, th e Division of Air Quality ( DAQ) made the document avail able for public review during June of last year . On June 13,2012, Richard Payton of my staff sent to you preliminary comments on the network p l an, which was ava ilabl e on the State's web s ite at that time, by emai l. 

### Mr. Payton also dis cussed the comments on the 2012 netw ork p lan with DAQ staff during a techni cal systems audit in September 2012. The DAQ made no substant i ve revi s ions between the ver sion of the 2012 network plan posted for comment last year and the final version subm itted to us recently. In the interim the DAQ has a l so deve l oped the Annual Mo nitor ing Plan 2013, which w e received on July 2, 2013. This J etter documents that the E P A h as reviewed the fmal 20 1 2 n etwork plan. This network plan does not resolve the issue of maximum-concentration ozone monitoring in Utah County raised in the preliminary comments of June 20 12. While the ozone p ortion of the 2012 network plan is not app r oved at this time for that reason, the remainder of the n etwor k plan i s approved
. Further comments on the conten ts ofyour network plans are deferred to our rev i ew ofthe 20 1 3 network plan , which is pending. I f you have any questions or comments, contact me at (303) 312-6431 or Joe D elwich e of my staff at (303 ) 3 1 2-6448. Sincerely,

# ~o**~** Deirdre R ot h ery, Chief Air Permitting, Monitoring, 

### & Modeling Unit
§ 603.16 Appeals of Adverse Determinations. ( a ) Except for appeals pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, an appeal of an Adverse Determination shall be made in writing addressed to the Chairman (Chairman) of the National Capital Planning Commission at the address listed on NCPC's official Web site *www.ncpc.gov .* If sent via email or facsimile, the Request shall be directed to the email address or facsimile number indicated on the NCPC Web site. To expedite internal handling, the words Privacy Act Request shall appear prominently on the envelop or the subject line of an email or facsimile cover sheet. An appeal of an Adverse Determination shall be made within 30 Workdays of the date of the decision.
( b ) An appeal of an Adverse Determination shall include a statement of the legal, factual or other basis for the Requester's objection to an Adverse Determination; a daytime phone number or email where the Requester can be reached if the Chairman requires additional information or clarification regarding the appeal; copies of the initial request and the PAO's written response; and for an Adverse Determination regarding a fee waiver, a demonstration of compliance with part 602 of this chapter.
( c ) The Chairman shall respond to an appeal of an Adverse Determination in writing within 20 Workdays of receipt of the appeal. If the Chairman grants the appeal, the Chairman shall notify the Requester, and the NCPC shall take prompt action to respond affirmatively to the original Request upon receipt of any fees that may be required. If the Chairman denies the appeal, the letter shall state the reason(s) for the denial, a statement that the decision is final, and advise the Requester of the right to seek judicial review of the denial in the District Court of the United States in either the district in which the Requester resides, the district in which the Requester has his/her principal place of business or the District of Columbia.
( d ) The appeal of an Adverse Determination based on OPM jurisdiction of the Records shall be made to OPM pursuant to 5 CFR 297.306.
( e ) The NCPC shall not act on an appeal of an Adverse Determination if the underlying Request becomes the subject of litigation.
( f ) A party seeking court review of an Adverse Determination must first appeal the Adverse Determination under this section.
# C_2013222EN.01002601.xml

| 2.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/26

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2013/C 222/08

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 26.6.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 26.6.2013-31.12.2013 |
| Member State | Portugal |
| Stock or group of stocks | LEZ/8C3411 |
| Species | Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Zone | VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 15/TQ39 |

Date and time of closure

26.6.2013

Duration

26.6.2013-31.12.2013

Member State

Portugal

Stock or group of stocks

LEZ/8C3411

Species

Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Lepidorhombus

Zone

VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

15/TQ39

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
MEETING SUMMARY Tuesday , March 30, 2010 4:30

- 5:30 PM EPA West, Room 3146 Purpose: The C enter for Health, Environment and Justice requested a meeting with OSWER's Assistant Administrator Mathy

Stanislaus to discuss the Draft Interim Recommended Preliminar y Remediation Goals for Dioxin in Soil at CERLCA and RCRA Attendees: Lois M. Gibbs, Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) Steve Lester, CHEJ Michelle H. Riddick, L one Tree Council, Bay City , MI (by

phone) Dick Clapp, Boston University , Schoo l of Public Health (by phone) Mathy Stanislaus, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Lisa Feldt, EPA, OSWER Bill Sette, EPA, OSWER Stiven Foster, EPA, OSWER Barnes Johnson, EPA, OSWER In Absentia: Margaret Williams, Citizens Agains t Toxic Exposure, Pensacola, FL
AGENDA 1) LM Gibbs

– CHEJs’ overall views on the proposed dioxin PRGs 2) D. Clapp

– dioxin carcinogenicity 3) S. L ester

– state dioxin standards, technical issues related to PRG development 4) M. Riddick

– community dioxin experienc es in Michigan 5) M. Williams (as presented by L . Gibbs)

– community

dioxin experiences in Florida 6) Open Discussion a. Children’s exposure and risk b. Changing land use: commercial vs residential standards c. Uptake and dietary

exposures d. Tribal experiences e. Fish advisories f. Community

Engagement Initiative g. Transmittal of comments and background materials
#### Ex Parte Jim Wade.

No. 22849.

Delivered March 15, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*Mat Davis,*of Gilmer, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a habeas, corpus proceeding. The disposition made thereof in the trial court, as shown by the judgment entered, is as follows:

“It is, therefore, Ordered and Adjudged that the application of the Petitioner, Jim Wade, herein be denied and issuance of writ as applied for refused; to which action and judgment of the Court the Petitioner then and there in open court excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, at Austin, Texas.” Such order is nothing more nor less than a refusal to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and - is not such a final judgment as will authorize an appeal to this court. Ex parte Noble, 176 S. W. (2d) 951.

The appeal is dismissed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### § 20.702 When is an appeal hearing scheduled?

The Superintendent or his/her designated representative must set a date for the hearing within 10 days of the date of request for a hearing and give written notice to the applicant or recipient.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0332. OTIS N. WHITE, JR. et al. v. HIGHWOOD PARK

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION et al.

Thisisthe second appearance of this case in this Court.

1

In February 2020, Otis

N. White, Jr. filed an action against Highwood Park Condominium Association

regarding the water pressure in his condominium. The defendant filed a motion to

dismiss White’s complaint, or in the alternative, to compel discovery and for

sanctions, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 (d). The trial court denied the motion to

dismiss but granted the motion to compel discovery and ordered that White’s counsel

pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,444.50 and the cost of the takedown of the

hearing on the motion. White sought immediate appellate review, but the trial court

issued an order denying a certificate of immediate review. White and his counsel

seeks discretionary review of the trial court’s order. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

This action remains pending before the trial court. Thus, the order the

applicants seek to appeal is a non-final order, as it did not resolve all issues in this

action. As a result, the applicants were required to follow the interlocutory appeal

procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) to challenge the order. See Bailey v.

Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human

Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991). Moreover, a trial

court’s decision to grant or refuse a certificate for immediate review of interlocutory

1

In the first appearance, White sought discretionary review of an award of

OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney’s fees in favor of the defendant. We dismissed his

application for failure to follow interlocutory appeal procedures. See Case No.

A21D0135, dismissed Dec. 21, 2020.

May 28, 2021
rulingsis notsubject to appellate review. Scruggs, 261 Ga. at 588 (1). White’sfailure

to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this

application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/28/2021
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpatial and Temporal Analyses of Environmental Affects on Zizania Palustris and Its Natural CyclesAs part of a joint education and research effort funded by NASA, research studies were initiated involving students associated with the Ojibwe and researchers at Marshall Space Flight Center. Topics were chosen that satisfied the nature of the work proposed and were tractable, given the student's constraints (abilities, interests, and time). One of the studies, which spanned two summers, examined some potential environmental effects on northern wild rice in northern Wisconsin. The rice of interest is naturally occurring ('wild' wild rice), as opposed to cultivated wild rice ('paddy' wild rice).Document ID20170010653Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRickman, Douglas L.*(ESSSA)*Greensky, Wayne*(Fond Du Lac Tribal and Community College Cloquet, MN, United States)*Al-Hamdan, M. Z.*(Universities Space Research Association Huntsville, AL, United States)*Estes, M. G.*(Alabama Univ. Huntsville, AL, United States)*Crosson, W. L.*(Universities Space Research Association Huntsville, AL, United States)*Estes, Sue M.*(Alabama Univ. Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredNovember 2, 2017Publication DateOctober 1, 2017Subject CategoryLife Sciences (General)Earth Resources And Remote SensingNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberM-1442NASA/TM-2017-219706MSFC-E-DAA-TN47695Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNM11AA01ACONTRACT_GRANT: NNM12AA41CCONTRACT_GRANT: 80MSFC17M0022Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPortions of document may include copyright protected material.KeywordsWild rice; Zizania palustris; ecology; climate; boom bust; cycleAvailable DownloadsNameType20170010653.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 170.119 Are housing site or area entry roads and housing streets eligible for TTP funding?

Yes. TTP housing site or area entry roads and housing streets on public rights-of-way are eligible for construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation funding under the TTP. Tribes, following the transportation planning process as required in subpart D, may include housing site or area entry roads and housing street projects on their TTIP.