alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01

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 Annual Report of Steven Madden,
Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Edward R. Rosenfeld,
Chairman and 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:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                          | 
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | (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/ EDWARD R. ROSENFELD                | 
|                                       | 
|Edward R. Rosenfeld                    | 
|Chairman and Chief
  Executive Officer | 
|March 12, 2009                         | 

---
### SUBCHAPTER VII—DIRECTORS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS; RESERVE AGENTS AND ASSISTANTS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6211
MOSES A. EDMONDS, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusLONNIE M. SAUNDERS, Warden of Augusta Correctional Center; LARRY W. HUFFMAN, Reg ional Director of Northern Region, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-696-R) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moses A. Edmonds, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Edmonds v. Saunders , No. CA-97-696-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 14, 1998). We also deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Daniel J. Gardetto, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from February 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 
| Dated March 25, 2013 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ Daniel J. Gardetto                |
|                      | Daniel J. Gardetto                    |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease |
|                      | Trust 2012-A                          |

 

----
### SUBCHAPTER XI—VOLUNTARY HOME MORTGAGE CREDIT

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subchapter was enacted as part of the Housing Act of 1954, and not as part of the National Housing Act which comprises this chapter.
§ 7.20 Classification and declassification authority. ( a ) Top Secret original classification authority may only be exercised by the Secretary and by officials with a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise such authority and to whom such authority is delegated in writing by the Secretary. The Chief Security Officer, as the Senior Agency Official, is delegated authority to originally classify information up to and including Top Secret. No official who is delegated Top Secret original classification authority by the Secretary may further delegate such authority.
( b ) The Chief Security Officer may delegate Secret and Confidential original classification authority to other officials with a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise such authority. No official who is delegated original classification authority by the Secretary or the Chief Security Officer may further delegate such authority.
( c ) Persons who are delegated original classification authority shall attend mandatory classification training within 60 days of the delegation, and annually thereafter. Persons who fail to attend mandatory training shall have such authority suspended until such time as the training occurs. ( 1 ) Except for suspensions of the Inspector General's classification authority, the Chief Security Officer may waive a suspension of authority for no longer than 60 days following the due date of the training when unavoidable circumstances exist that prevent the person from attending the training.
( 2 ) For cases involving suspension of the Inspector General's classification authority under paragraph (c) of this section, only the Secretary or Deputy Secretary may waive such a suspension.
( d ) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level. In the absence of an official authorized to exercise classification authority, the person designated to act in lieu of such official may exercise the official's classification authority.
( e ) Declassification authority may be exercised by the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority; the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority; a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or officials delegated declassification authority by the Secretary or the Chief Security Officer.
Richard Cullen Anonjw Galuu 

# COMMONWEALTH of 

# VIRGINIA

Office of tkAttorney Gencrd Richmond 23219 

### January 12,1998

The Honorable Michael McCabe Regional Administrator, Region 

### I11 

### U.S.Environmental Protection Agency 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 General Respoases Regarding Virginia's Environmental Assessment Privileee and Immunitv Law
Dear Mr. McCabe:
We have received EPA's September 4, 1997 letter questing information regarding whether Virginia's Environmental Assessment Privilege and Immunity Law 

### (5

## 9 10.1

# -1198 and 10.1

# - 1199 of the Code of Virginia ("Code")) ("Environmental Privilegdmmunity Law") deprives the Commonwealth of adequate authority to enforce various requirements of our environmental programs that have been authonzcd, delegated, or approved by EPA or whose authorization, delegation, or approval by EPA is pending (collectively, "Virginia's federally authorized environmental programs"). With this letter, I respond to the questions presented in the CrossProgrammatic Enclosure to that letter. As explained fully below, none of Virginia's federally authorized environmental

### programs arc subjectto the EnvironmentalPrivilegeAmmunityLaw.
1. Vireinia's Environmental Privileee/ImmunitvLaw Virginia's Environmental Privilege/Immunity Law was enacted in 1995 and is found at 

### 99 lo. 1 

# - 1198 and 10.1.-1199ofthe Code. Section 10.1 

# -1198provides a privilege that protects 

### hm &sz!osurt documents 

### and information about the content of those documents that are the product of
a voluntary environmental assessment. Not protected by the privilege 

### are documents or information (1) that 

### are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

### a clear, 

### imminent, and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that 

### an nquindby law. "Document" is defined to include "field notes, records of observations, 

### findings,opinions, suggestions, conclusions, drafts, memoranda, drawings, photographs, videotape, computer-generatedor electronically recorded information, maps, charts, graphs and surveys." 

### Any document submitted to the Commonwealth pursuant to its feddly authorid environmental programs would 

### fall within this definition. See Cross-Programmatic Enclosure, No. 3. As discussed below, however, documents (and information about 

### thc content of those documents) that are needed for civil and criminal enforcement of Virginia's feddy authorized environmental programs would not be privileged.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1034

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the amount

of payment under the Medicare Program for pap smear laboratory tests.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 13, 1999

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mrs. MURRAY, and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase

the amount of payment under the Medicare Program

for pap smear laboratory tests.

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 ‘‘Investment in Wom5 en’s Health Act of 1999’’.
2

•S 1034 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR PAP SMEAR

2 LABORATORY TESTS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(h) of the Social Se4 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(h)) is amended by adding at

5 the end the following:

6 ‘‘(7) In no case shall payment under the fee schedule

7 established under paragraph (1) for the laboratory test

8 component of a diagnostic or screening pap smear be less

9 than $14.60.’’.

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

11 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to laboratory tests

12 furnished on or after January 1, 2000.

Æ
### §2785. Remittance addresses: regulation of alterations

The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), shall prescribe regulations setting forth controls on alteration of remittance addresses. Those regulations shall ensure that—

(1) a remittance address for a disbursement that is provided by an officer or employee of the Department of Defense authorizing or requesting the disbursement is not altered by any officer or employee of the department authorized to prepare the disbursement; and

(2) a remittance address for a disbursement is altered only if the alteration—

(A) is requested by the person to whom the disbursement is authorized to be remitted; and

(B) is made by an officer or employee authorized to do so who is not an officer or employee referred to in paragraph (1).

(Added Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title IX, §933(a)(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 729.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Regulations

Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title IX, §933(b)(2), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 730, provided that: "Regulations under section 2785 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall be prescribed not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 1999]."
§ 27.320 Prohibition on ex parte communications during proceedings. ( a ) At no time after the designation of a Presiding Officer for a Proceeding and prior to the issuance of a Final Decision pursuant to § 27.345 with respect to a facility or other person, shall the appointed Presiding Officer, or any person who will advise that official in the decision on the matter, discuss ex parte the merits of the proceeding with any interested person outside the Department, with any Department official who performs a prosecutorial or investigative function in such proceeding or a factually related proceeding, or with any representative of such person.
( b ) If, after appointment of a Presiding Officer and prior to the issuance of a Final Decision pursuant to § 27.345 with respect to a facility or other person, the appointed Presiding Officer, or any person who will advise that official in the decision on the matter, receives from or on behalf of any party, by means of an ex parte communication, information that is relevant to the decision of the matter and to which other parties have not had an opportunity to respond, a summary of such information shall be served on all other parties, who shall have an opportunity to reply to the ex parte communication within a time set by the Presiding Officer.
( c ) The consideration of classified information or CVI pursuant to an in camera procedure does not constitute a prohibited ex parte communication for purposes of this subpart.
[72 FR 17729, Apr. 9, 2007, as amended at 86 FR 41892, Aug. 4, 2021]
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or15d-14(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Joseph Loggia, certify that:

(1)         I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Advanstar Communications Inc. (the “registrant”);

(2)         Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

(3)         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)         The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          [Reserved]

(c)           Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting;

(5)         The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: November 15,2004
|        | By:    | /s/ JOSEPH  LOGGIA        |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   | Joseph Loggia             |
|   |   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

 

----
# Materials NotIncluded in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA~2009~1254 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM040AD

IS8 57~072, R1 ~~~

9/25/08 IS8 57~072~~~

2/22/08

NamelDescription of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained inthe Supplemental AD Docket
MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW, Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Dale: 03/05/2008
# C_2007028EN.01000401.xml

| 8.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 February 2007

(2007/C 28/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2987 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,74 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4524 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,65850 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1175 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6111 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,22 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0895 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5791 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,128 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,24 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6964 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8685 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3697 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,518 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8215 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6695 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5370 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1459 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9025 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9910 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 212,53 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3341 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0623 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3860 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 738,30 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5370 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,792 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,4200 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,543 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2987

JPY

Japanese yen

156,74

DKK

Danish krone

7,4524

GBP

Pound sterling

0,65850

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1175

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6111

ISK

Iceland króna

88,22

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0895

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5791

CZK

Czech koruna

28,128

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,24

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6964

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8685

RON

Romanian leu

3,3697

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,518

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8215

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6695

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5370

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1459

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9025

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9910

KRW

South Korean won

1 212,53

ZAR

South African rand

9,3341

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0623

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3860

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 738,30

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5370

PHP

Philippine peso

62,792

RUB

Russian rouble

34,4200

THB

Thai baht

44,543

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
§ 27.215 Security vulnerability assessments. ( a ) *Initial assessment.* If the Executive Assistant Director determines that a chemical facility is high risk, the facility must complete a Security Vulnerability Assessment. A Security Vulnerability Assessment shall include: ( 1 ) Asset Characterization, which includes the identification and characterization of potential critical assets; identification of hazards and consequences of concern for the facility, its surroundings, its identified critical asset(s), and its supporting infrastructure; and identification of existing layers of protection;
( 2 ) Threat Assessment, which includes a description of possible internal threats, external threats, and internally-assisted threats;
( 3 ) Security Vulnerability Analysis, which includes the identification of potential security vulnerabilities and the identification of existing countermeasures and their level of effectiveness in both reducing identified vulnerabilities and in meeting the applicable risk-based performance standards;
( 4 ) Risk Assessment, including a determination of the relative degree of risk to the facility in terms of the expected effect on each critical asset and the likelihood of a success of an attack; and
( 5 ) Countermeasures Analysis, including strategies that reduce the probability of a successful attack or reduce the probable degree of success, strategies that enhance the degree of risk reduction, the reliability and maintainability of the options, the capabilities and effectiveness of mitigation options, and the feasibility of the options.
( b ) Except as provided in § 27.235, a covered facility must complete the Security Vulnerability Assessment through the CSAT process, or through any other methodology or process identified or issued by the Executive Assistant Director.
( c ) Covered facilities must submit a Security Vulnerability Assessment to the Department in accordance with the schedule provided in § 27.210.
( d ) *Updates and revisions.* ( 1 ) A covered facility must update and revise its Security Vulnerability Assessment in accordance with the schedule provided in § 27.210.
( 2 ) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, a covered facility must update, revise, or otherwise alter its Security Vulnerability Assessment to account for new or differing modes of potential terrorist attack or for other security-related reasons, if requested by the Executive Assistant Director.
[72 FR 17729, Apr. 9, 2007, as amended at 86 FR 41891, Aug. 4, 2021]
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 

# In This Section

                      -  HazMat Technical Resources 
                      -  Technical Reports 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Evaluation of Ruptured DOT-E-7235 Cylinder PDF                   

## Related Documents

                  -                                          Evaluation of Ruptured DOT-E-7235 Cylinder PDF                   

# Evaluation of Ruptured DOT-E-7235 Cylinder

**Mar 13, 1993**

The main purpose of this technical evaluation was to determine the cause of the SCBA aluminum liner hoop-wrapped fiber glass cylinder failure in Coram, NY

**Key Words:** hoop wrapped fiber glass, rupture, aluminium liner, SLC, sustain load crack, aluminum

If you have any technical questions not addressed by this or associated documents, contact Mark Toughiry, 202-366-4545.

[NOTE: The attached documents are in PDF format, you can download a free viewer.  If you have problems accessing the PDFs or the information, report your problem for further assistance.]
### §281. Capital

No Federal reserve bank shall commence business with a subscribed capital less than $4,000,000.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §2 (part), 38 Stat. 253.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of part of the thirteenth par. of section 2 of act Dec. 23, 1913. Some of the other provisions of the thirteenth par. are classified to section 224 of this title, and some were not included in the Code. For classification of other pars. of section 2 of this Act, see Codification note set out under section 222 of this title.