alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1

Section 906 Certification

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report)
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Jorge Carlos Bledel, the Chief Executive Officer and Marcelo Gustavo Canestri, the Chief Financial Officer of BBVA Banco Francés S.A., each certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge:

| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and                                                             
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BBVA Banco Francés S.A.

June 29, 2006

/s/ Jorge Carlos BledelName: Jorge Carlos BledelChief Executive Officer/s/ Marcelo Gustavo CanestriName: Marcelo Gustavo CanestriChief Financial Officer
# C_2006249EN.01002001.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/20

---

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-200/06

(2006/C 249/41)

The notice in the Official Journal of the European Union in Case T-200/06 IBERDROLA v Commission of the European Communities, as referred to in Article 24(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, was published twice, on 16 September 2006 (OJ C 224, p. 49) and 30 September 2006 (OJ C 237, p. 9).

Official Journal of the European Union

IBERDROLA

Regard being had to the provisions of Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the second publication of the notice in question in the Official Journal of the European Union is the only one to be taken into account in calculating the period referred to in Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
#### § 100.25 Generic campaign activity (52 U.S.C. 30101(21)).

*Generic campaign activity* means a public communication that promotes or opposes a political party and does not promote or oppose a clearly identified Federal candidate or a non-Federal candidate.

[67 FR 49110, July 29, 2002]
### §3768. Deficiency judgment

#### (a) In general

#### (1) Referral to Attorney General

If after deducting the payments provided for in section 3762 of this title, the price at which the security property is sold at a foreclosure sale is less than the unpaid balance of the debt secured by the security property, resulting in a deficiency, the Secretary may refer the matter to the Attorney General who may commence an action or actions against any or all debtors to recover the deficiency, unless such an action is specifically prohibited by the mortgage.

#### (2) Other recoveries

In any action instituted pursuant to this section the United States may recover—

(A) any amount authorized by section 3011 of title 28; and

(B) the costs of the action.

#### (b) Limitation

Any action commenced to recover a deficiency under this section must be brought not later than 6 years after the date of the last sale of the security property.

(Pub. L. 103–327, title II, Sept. 28, 1994, 108 Stat. 2316.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 819 of title VIII of S. 2281, One Hundred Third Congress, as reported July 13, 1994, which was enacted into law by Pub. L. 103–327.
#### Christine Scafidi et al., Respondents, v Town of Islip, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 410]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 21, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

“The affidavit of an official charged with the responsibility of keeping an indexed record of all notices of defective conditions received by [a town] is sufficient to establish that no prior written notice was filed” *(Cruz v City of New York,*218 AD2d 546, 547 [1995]; *see Campisi v Bronx Water & Sewer Serv.,*1 AD3d 166, 167 [2003]; *Cortes v City of Mount Vernon,*262 AD2d 441 [1999]; *cf. Goldberger v Village of Kiryas Joel,*31 AD3d 496 [2006] ; *Rupp v City of Port Jervis,*10 AD3d 391 [2004]). Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff Robert Scafidi’s conclusory and unsubstantiated claim that he supplied the defendant with prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition was inadequate to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Accordingly, the defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it had no prior written notice of the alleged defect *(see*Town Law § 65-a; *Wilkie v Town of Huntington,*29 AD3d 898 [2006]; *Patti v Town of N. Hempstead,*23 AD3d 362 [2005]). The plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions in opposition were also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant either created the condition by affirmative negligence or derived a special benefit from the area unrelated to the public use *(see Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; *Kaufman v Silver,*90 NY2d 204 [1997]). The Supreme Court *670therefore erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.E, Adams, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.
|   | (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 |   |
| February 28, 2011                    |   |

----
#### § 145.51 Definitions.

Except where the context otherwise requires, for the purposes of this subpart the following terms shall be construed, respectively, to mean:

*Exhibition Poultry.* Domesticated fowl which are bred for the combined purposes of meat or egg production and competitive showing.

*Hobbyist poultry.* Domesticated fowl which are bred for the purpose of meat and/or egg production on a small scale as determined by the Official State Agency.

*Raised-for-release waterfowl.* Domesticated fowl that normally swim, such as ducks and geese, grown under confinement for the primary purpose of producing eggs, chicks, started, or mature birds for release on game preserves or in the wild.

[36 FR 23112, Dec. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 44 FR 61586, Oct. 26, 1979, and amended at 59 FR 12799, Mar. 18, 1994; 85 FR 62566, Oct. 5, 2020]
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before MONAHAN , STEPHENS , and DEERWESTER Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Mogesner NOEL Corporal (E

- 4 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 202200018

_________________________ Decided: 28 July 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge : Stephen F. Keane
Sentence adjudged 12 October 2021 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton , California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 7 months , 1 forfeiture of $ 1 , 190 pay per month for 7 months , and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Major Brian L. Farrell, USMC

1 The convening a uthority suspended one month of forfeitures. Appellant was credited with 209 days of pre

- trial confinement.United States v. Noel , NMCCA No. 202200018 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 2
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

S. TAYLOR JOHNSTON Interim Clerk of Court

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
From: Bob Haggerty, NYDEC

Sent: October 15, 2008 2:29 PM

To: Rich LaShier

Subject: NY Clarification of Seemingly Conflicting Statements on CBI treatment of HW 

Report and Manifest Data

Hi Rich

I can explain why NYS responded the way we did, we'll have to see how everyone else answers.

First off - While we have allowed CBI claims for Biennial Report information in the past, we haven't had a 

CBI request in years and haven't granted one in even longer. So technically, our response is yes, we 

have allowed CBI, but we are not sure we would anymore. The last times it was granted were because 

the reports contained descriptions of processes that produced waste that the submitters claimed were 

proprietary processes and didn't want the description to get out to their competitors. We have never 

granted a CBI claim based on data contained in the report.

We don't allow CBI for manifest data. All of our manifest data is all available to the public on line, on our 

website, where it can be downloaded and used however they want. We have data from and images of 

manifests dating back to the early 80's. Some as far back as 1982! If you would like to see any of it, 

you can go to http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/9098.html You may want to show this to OMB.

Bob

Director, Bureau of Program Management

Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials

NYSDEC

625 Broadway

Albany, New York 12233-7250

518-402-8712

518-402-9024 Fax
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOUSTAFA EL SAYED HARIDY,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71013

Agency No. A095-618-096

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Moustafa El Sayed Haridy, a native of Saudi Arabia and citizen of Egypt,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

FILED

MAR 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JK/Research 2 07-71013

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,

Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Haridy’s motion to reopen

because Haridy did not show prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of

removal. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may deny a

motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief

sought); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s

denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or

contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
## Martin. Michael (OST)

Cc: Martin, Michael (OST) Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:19 AM Jack Skinner (skinner@laramieairport.com); Gary Thompson (worlandairport@rtconnect.net); mayor@rtconnect.net Nick Wangler (nick@forecast-inc.com); Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); mmatthews@flygreatlakes.com; Brad Rawson; Shawn Simpson (shawn@boutiqueair.com) Essential Air Service at Laramie and Worland Boutique Air - Laramie and Worland WY bids.pdf; Great LakesWRL Bid 2014 5 23 2104.pdf; LARSkyWest Bid 2014.pdf From: 

### Sent: To:
Subject: Attachments:
Everyone: I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS)situation a,tLaramie and Worland, and give you an opportunity to offer any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We issued Order 2014-4-5 (April 3, 2014), requesting proposals from airlines interested in providing EASfor a new term. In response to our request, Boutique Air, Great LakesAviation, and SkyWest Airlines submitted proposals. I have attached each air carrier's proposal for your review and I expect it to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime this afternoon. I request that you review the proposals and submit any comments you may have assoon as possible, but no later than Tuesday, June 17. Please send your comments directly to me via e-mail at michael.f
.martin@dot.gov
. Also, please forward this e-mail to all relevant parties that I have not included on this distribution list. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards, Michael Martin

1
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-90 

October 6, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 208 Mergers, Consolidations and other Transfers of Plan Assets

1015(l). (IRC § 414) Definitions and Special Rules. Mergers, Consolidations and Other Transfers of Plan Assets

4043(b)(8) Reportable Events. Mergers, Consolidations & other Transfers of Plan Assets 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter to us of September 19, 1975 regarding the transfer of assets of several defined

benefit plans resulting from the planned acquisition of the * * * by * * * The transfer of assets from one plan to another

does not require the advance approval of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC"), though it is a reportable

event under Section 4043(b) (8) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). However, this

section requires that the plan administrator notify us within 30 days after he knows or has reason to know that such a

transfer has occurred. Consequently, the plan administrator (as we understand you are not) should give PBGC notice

of the transfer within 30 days of its occurrence. 

In your recent telephone conversation with * * * you informed him that none of these plans were multiemployer

plans. So far as we know, neither the Department of Labor, which administers [*2] Section 208 of ERISA nor the

Internal Revenue Service which administers Section 1015 of ERISA, both of which also cover transfers of singleemployer plan assets or liabilities, requires advance approval of such a transfer. However, if you wish to know with

certainty, I would check directly with those agencies. 

I trust this answers your inquiry.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Richard A. Rendich for the Appointment of Appraisers, etc., v. The Federal Brewing Company.

Motion'for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Present — Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.*
§ 205.105 Master list and portion thereof distributed to registrants—format. ( a ) The master list must contain all the information on all the EFS's filed in the system, so arranged that it is possible to deliver to any registrant all such information relating to any product, produced or located in any county or parish (or all counties or parishes), for any crop year, covered by the system. The system must be able to deliver all such information to any registrant, either in alphabetical order by the word appearing first in the name of each person subjecting a product to a security interest (see § 205.102), in numerical order by social security number or approved unique identifier (or, if other than a natural person, IRS taxpayer identification number or approved unique identifier) of each such person, or in both alphabetical and numerical orders, as requested by the registrant.
( b ) Section (c)(2)(E) requires the portion to be distributed in “written or printed form.” This means recording on paper by any technology in a form that can be read by humans without special equipment. The system may, however, honor requests from registrants to substitute recordings on any medium by any technology including, but not limited to, electronic recording on tapes or discs in machine-readable form, and on photographic recording on microfiche. It also includes, if requested by registrants, electronic transmissions whereby registrants can print their own paper copies.
( c ) After distribution of a portion of a master list, there can be supplementary distribution of a portion showing only changes from the previous one. However, if this is done, cumulative supplements must be distributed often enough that readers can find all the information given to them for any one crop year in no more than three distributions.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0016) [51 FR 29451, Aug. 18, 1986, as amended at 61 FR 54728, Oct. 22, 1996; 71 FR 56343, Sept. 27, 2006]
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1343

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain National Forest

land to Elko County, Nevada, for continued use as a cemetery.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1, 1999

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain

National Forest land to Elko County, Nevada, for continued use as a cemetery.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NATIONAL FOREST LAND TO

4 ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA, FOR USE AS CEME5 TERY.

6 (a) REQUIREMENT TO CONVEY.—The Secretary of

7 Agriculture shall convey, without consideration, to Elko

8 County, Nevada, all right, title, and interest of the United

9 States in and to the parcel of real property described in

10 subsection (b), for use as a cemetery.
2

•S 1343 IS

1 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—The property referred to in

3 subsection (a) is a parcel of National Forest land

4 (including any improvements on the land) in Elko

5 County, Nevada, known as ‘‘Jarbidge Cemetery’’,

6 consisting of approximately 2 acres and described as

the NE1⁄4SW11⁄4NW1 7 ⁄4 of Section 9 T 46 N, R 58

8 E, MDB&M.

9 (2) SURVEY.—

10 (A) IN GENERAL.—The exact acreage and

11 legal description of the property to be conveyed

12 under subsection (a) shall be determined by a

13 survey satisfactory to the Secretary.

14 (B) COST.—As a condition of any convey15 ance under this section, the County shall pay

16 the cost of the survey.

17 (c) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

18 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi19 tions with respect to the conveyance under subsection (a)

20 as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the inter21 ests of the United States.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Advanced Optics Electronics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2007.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in Advanced Optics Electronics, Inc. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on March 2, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 15, 2011.

By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-5038 Filed 3-2-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

38.5 39.0 39.5



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/22 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL