alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 439.53 Revocation of accreditation. A laboratory will have its accreditation revoked from the program if suspension status is not rectified. The accreditation of a laboratory will also be revoked for the following reasons: ( a ) An accredited laboratory will have its accreditation revoked if the Administrator determines that the laboratory or any responsibly connected individual or any agent or employee has: ( 1 ) Altered any official sample or analytical finding; or
( 2 ) Substituted any analytical result from any other laboratory and represented the result as its own.
( b ) An accredited laboratory will have its accreditation revoked if the laboratory or any individual or entity responsibly connected with the laboratory is convicted in a Federal or State court of any of the following violations of law. A laboratory must notify the ALP within 30 calendar days if any of these situations occur. ( 1 ) Any felony.
( 2 ) Any misdemeanor based upon acquiring, handling, or distributing of unwholesome, misbranded, or deceptively packaged food or upon fraud in connection with transactions in food.
( 3 ) Any misdemeanor based upon a false statement to any governmental agency.
( 4 ) Any misdemeanor based upon the offering, giving or receiving of a bribe or unlawful gratuity.
#### § 550.3 Record retention period.

The record retention requirements in 9 CFR 320.3 apply to records required to be kept under this part.
EXHIBIT 35.2

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated October 15, 2015, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated October 15, 2015, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2015-3US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | I, Alan Cameron, am a Director of Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited (the Manager).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Managers activities during the period from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been
made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Manager has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|Date: June 26, 2018                        
|                                           
|/s/ Alan Cameron                           
|Alan Cameron Director                      
|                                           
|Macquarie Securities Management Pty
Limited
(Nos. 31968, 31969.

#### Goldblatt Bros., Inc., *et al.,*Appellants, *vs.*Sixty-third and Halsted Realty Co., Appellee.—Sixty-third and Halsted Realty Co., Appellee, *vs.*Goldblatt Bros., Inc., Appellant.

*Opinion filed December 18, 1951.*

Eckhart, Klein, McSwain & Campbell, and Pritzker, Pritzicer & Clinton, (John Neal Campbell, Howard F. Hursum, Stanford Clinton, and Robert A. SprEChER, of counsel,) all of Chicago, for appellants.

Clausen, Hirsch & Miller, and Nasi-i, Ahern *8c*McNally, (Werner W. Schroeder, of counsel,) all of Chicago, for appellee.

Per Curiam :

Petitions for leave to appeal have been allowed in *Goldblatt Bros., Inc.,*v. *Sixty-third and Halsted Realty Co.,*No. 31968, and *Sixty-third and Halsted Realty Co.*v. *Goldblatt Bros., Inc.,*No. 31969. For purposes of a hearing and opinion the cases are consolidated.

The parties in these cases have filed written stipulations agreeing to the disposition of the cases. The stipulation in each case is as follows: •

*469“It is stipulated by and between the parties hereto by their respective attorneys of record that the judgment of the Appellate Court shall be affirmed.

“It is further stipulated by all parties hereto that any words or phrases or conclusions in the opinion of the Appellate Court which in any manner reflect upon the good faith or gbod motives of appellant, Goldblatt Bros., Inc., shall be considered as excepted to by Goldblatt Bros., Inc.”

The court having considered the records submitted and the stipulations of the parties, it is ordered that the judgments be affirmed. The phrases and conclusions in the opinion of the Appellate Court which in any manner reflect upon the good faith and good motives of appellant, Goldblatt Bros., Inc., are, in our opinion, unsubstantiated in the record.

*Judgments affirmed.*
### §12526. Premiums

(a) Establishment of Rates.—(1) The Secretary, in consultation with the Board of Actuaries, shall prescribe the premium rates for insurance under the insurance program.

(2) The Secretary shall prescribe a fixed premium rate for each $1,000 of monthly insurance benefit. The premium amount shall be equal to the share of the cost attributable to insuring the member and shall be the same for all members of the Ready Reserve who are insured under the insurance program for the same benefit amount. The Secretary shall prescribe the rate on the basis of the best available estimate of risk and financial exposure, levels of subscription by members, and other relevant factors.

(b) Level Premiums.—The premium rate prescribed for the first year of insurance coverage of an insured member shall be continued without change for subsequent years of insurance coverage, except that the Secretary, after consultation with the Board of Actuaries, may adjust the premium rate in order to fund inflation-adjusted benefit increases on an actuarially sound basis.

(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title V, §512(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 301.)
---

Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hersha Hospitality Trust (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ashish R. Parikh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








November 5, 2010
/s/ Ashish R. ParikhAshish R. ParikhChief Financial Officer
§ 83.2 What is the purpose of the regulations in this part? The regulations in this part implement Federal statutes for the benefit of Indian tribes by establishing procedures and criteria for the Department to use to determine whether a petitioner is an Indian tribe eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. A positive determination will result in Federal recognition status and the petitioner's addition to the Department's list of federally recognized Indian tribes. Federal recognition: ( a ) Is a prerequisite to the protection, services, and benefits of the Federal Government available to those that qualify as Indian tribes and possess a government-to-government relationship with the United States;
( b ) Means the tribe is entitled to the immunities and privileges available to other federally recognized Indian tribes;
( c ) Means the tribe has the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of other federally recognized Indian tribes; and
( d ) Subjects the Indian tribe to the same authority of Congress and the United States as other federally recognized Indian tribes.
Skip to Main Content

            -  RSS 
            -  Español 
            -  Sign-Up for E-Newsletter 
            -  A–Z Index 

Text size: 

          -  						NIDCR Home 
          -  						Oral Health 
          -  						Clinical Trials 
          -  						Research 
          -  						Grants & Funding 
          -  						Careers & Training 

NIDCR Home                 > About Us                 > Advisory Boards and Councils                 > National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council

# Minutes

                -  						187th Meeting - January 2008 
                -  						186th Meeting - September 2007 
                -  						185th Meeting - May 2007 
                -  						184th Meeting - January 2007 
                -  						183rd Meeting - September 2006 
                -  						182nd Meeting - May 2006 
                -  						181st Meeting - January 2006 
                -  						180th Meeting - September 2005 
                -  						179th Meeting - June 2005 
                -  						178th Meeting - January 2005 
                -  						177th Meeting - September 2004 
                -  						175th Meeting - May 2004 
                -  						174th Meeting - January 2004 
                -  						173rd Meeting - October 2003 
                -  						172nd Meeting - June 2003 

              - Print this page
              - E-mail this page

Up to top

This page last updated: June 17, 2008

          -  					Home 
          -  					Site Map 
          -  					Web Policies 
          -  					Privacy Policy 
          -  					FOIA 
          -  					Contact Us 
          - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
          - National Institutes of Health
          - Bethesda, MD 20892-2190
          - 301-496-4261
### Draft Permit Comments

Mike Thompson

to:

Jack Faulk

01/24/2010 11:56 AM

Show Details

Jack

Enjoyed the meeting in Dallas. Helped me to better understand what is going on, though I do not think I like it

any better. So many questions will remain unanswered until "real world" experience provides an answer.

My only comment at this time is as follows:

1. FIFRA requires that all applicators ( commercial or not) of pesticides designated as "restricted" by EPA

be certified prior to use and in most states licensed by the state. I could easily see a person obtaining this

NPDES Permit to apply pesticides and thinkijng he/she has met all requirements. I think a sentence in the

beginning of the permit advising the permittee that the NPDES permit does not negate the permittee's

obligation to comply with other applicable state and federal requirements.

Micheal Thompson

AR Dept. of Agriculture 

### Page 1 of 1

5/12/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web7888.htm
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementon Form S-8 (File No. 33-78784) (1993 EquityParticipation Plan) and Form S-8 (File No. 33-92648)(Deferred Compensation Plan) of Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. of ourreport dated March 29, 2007, relating to our audits of the consolidatedbalance sheets of Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. andSubsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes inshareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the periodended December 31, 2006 and on our audit of the financial statementschedule, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

| /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS  LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| New York, New York              |   |
| March 30, 2007             |   |

 

----
**CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CUSTODIAN
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of *Family
Healthcare Solutions, Inc.* , a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-QSB for the year ended March 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Teodoro
F. Franco L. ,
certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350),
that to 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated:
March 31, 2005
 /s/Teodoro F. Franco
L.
 Teodoro
F. Franco L.
 Sole
Officer/Director
Exhibit 32.2

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

 In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rapid Link,
 Incorporated (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2005 as
 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("this
 Report"), I, Allen Sciarillo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as adopted pursuant to S 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)  This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.


 Date: January 30, 2006             /s/ Allen Sciarillo
                                    ____________________
                                    Allen Sciarillo
                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Stephen Shelton

*J. Ward Rafferty,*in support of the motion.

Submitted April 9

decided April 24, 1974

The defendant’s motion for a review by this court of the bond set by the Tenth Circuit Court on March 18, 1974, is dismissed. See General Statutes § 54-63g.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


         Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  the
undersigned  Chief Executive Officer of Asante'  Technologies,  Inc., a Delaware
corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify  with respect to the Annual
Report of the Company on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  October 2, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-KSB Report") that:

         (1) the 10-KSB 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 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  January 18, 2005                   ASANTE' TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                           /s/ Jeff Lin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Jeff Lin
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



                                       70
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of FTS Group, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:
 
 The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 By:
              /s/
      Scott GallagherScott
      Gallagher
                Principal
      Executive Officer, Interim Chief Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer
  Date:  May 21,
2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Theodore Hendrickson, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 125]

Appeals by the defendant from a (1) judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered September 13, 2004, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), rape in the third degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts) and sodomy in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence and (2) a resentence of the same court imposed December 9, 2004.

Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in allowing the People to present expert testimony since it served to bolster the victims’ testimony and to prove the accuracy of the victims’ accounts is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the expert testimony *(see People v Carroll,*95 NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; *People v Taylor,*75 NY2d 277 [1990]; *People v Higgins,*12 AD3d 775 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

Exhibit 27:       Financial Data Schedule


THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                   jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                                         3,626,693
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  2,084,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   18,847
<INVENTORY>                                                    322,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               6,237,098
<PP&E>                                                         3,354,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 376,517
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 8,228,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          1,640,269
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       7,719,673
<OTHER-SE>                                                     (1,131,497)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   8,228,445
<SALES>                                                        5,672,816
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               5,837,949
<CGS>                                                          1,606,673
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  1,606,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               4,661,385
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (430,109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   307,294
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (737,403)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (737,403)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  (0.12)



</TABLE>
§ 381.75 Poultry used for research. ( a ) No poultry used in any research investigation involving an experimental biological product, drug, or chemical shall be eligible for slaughter at an official establishment unless the operator of such establishment, the sponsor of the investigation, or the investigator has submitted to the Inspection Service, or the Veterinary Biologics unit of Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department or the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, data or a summary evaluation of the data which demonstrates that the use of such biological product, drug, or chemical will not result in the products of such poultry being adulterated, and the Administrator has approved such slaughter.
[37 FR 9706, May 16, 1972, as amended at 39 FR 4569, Feb. 5, 1974]
# C_2012379EN.01002201.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T-503/10) (1)

1

(Public supply contracts - Call for tenders - Supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines - Rejection of a submitted tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer)

2012/C 379/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: R. Gross, T. Kroupa, T. Drosdziok and F. Ahr, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision dated 10 August 2010 of the European Union delegation in the Republic of Serbia (OJ 2010/S 192-293332) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---