alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Genzyme Corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                                                                         |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ HENRI A. TERMEER Henri A. Termeer Chief Executive OfficerMay 8, 2009 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 99.2 - Management Assertion as to compliance with minimum servicing
	       standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005


Wachovia Corporation
NC0572
201 South College Street, 17th floor
Charlotte Plaza Building
Charlotte, NC 28244


						WACHOVIA


			Management Assertion


Management of Wachovia Bank, National Association (the Bank) is
responsible for assessing compliance with applicable servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, except for servicing criteria (d)(1).ii.,
(d)(1).iii., (d)(2).iii., (d)(2).vi., (d)(4).iii., (d)(4).x., (d)(4).xi.,
(d)(4).xii. and (d)(4).xiii., which the Bank has determined as being
inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing
of asset-backed securitized transactions backed by auto receivables and
serviced by the Bank. The asset-backed securitized transactions backed by
auto receivables and serviced by the Bank at December 31, 2005 were Wachovia
Auto Owner Trust 2004-A, Wachovia Auto Owner Trust 2004-B, Wachovia Auto
Owner Trust 2005-A, and Wachovia Auto Owner Trust 2005-B.

The Bank's management has assessed the effectiveness of the Bank's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December
31, 2005. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth
by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of
Regulation AB.

Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year
ending December 31, 2005, the Bank has complied in all material respects with
the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, except for servicing criteria (d)(1).ii.,
(d)(1).iii., (d)(2).iii., (d)(2).vi., (d)(4).iii., (d)(4).x., (d)(4).xi.,
(d)(4).xii. and (d)(4).xiii., which the Bank has determined as being
inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing of
asset-backed securitized transactions described above.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report with respect to management's assessment of compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31,
2005.


/s/ James W. McLawhorn Jr			March 13, 2006
James W. McLawhorn Jr					Date
Senior Vice President, Dealer Finance Services
Wachovia Bank, National Association


/s/  John M. Gordon				March 13, 2006
John M. Gordon						Date
Vice President, ABS-Master Servicing
Wachovia Bank, National Association
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 14,519

 11,651

 9,639

 11,908

 15,142

 15,790

 17,140

 16,844

 18,819

 19,093

 21,451

 22,492

 23,120

 21,652

 20,499

 16,963

 16,838

 16,740

 15,574

 14,630

 16,073

 16,474

 17,486

 16,854

 18,690

 14,412

 13,095

 12,705

 11,517

 11,725

 10,836

 7,571

 6,298

 4,756

 4,928

 6,337

 7,393

 9,088

 8,806

 5,527

 7,781

 9,108

 9,269

 10,212

 10,006

 9,788

 9,719

 7,931

 8,354

 6,713

 6,904

 7,071

 8,178

 7,112

 7,093

 7,835

 4,990

 4,789

 4,464

 3,995

 3,874

 3,663

 10,230

 8,675

 7,134

 8,475

 10,615

 11,329

 12,468

 12,921

 12,755

 12,976

 13,948

 14,711

 16,284

 15,224

 14,884

 13,191

 12,254

 11,933

 10,997

 10,208

 10,335

 11,673

 11,452

 11,194

 13,320

 10,132

 8,395

 7,551

 7,104

 6,872

 6,402

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 6, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.1303 Advertising requirements. All advertising conducted to satisfy the required recruitment steps under § 655.102 before filing the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* must meet the requirements set forth in this section and at § 655.104 and must contain terms and conditions of employment which are not less favorable than those that will be offered to the H-2A workers. All advertising must contain the following information: ( a ) The employer's name and location(s) of work, or in the event that a master application will be filed by an association, a statement indicating that the name and location of each member of the association can be obtained from the SWA of the State in which the advertisement is run;
( b ) The geographic area(s) of employment with enough specificity to apprise applicants of any travel requirements and where applicants will likely have to reside to perform the services or labor;
( c ) A description of the job opportunity for which certification is sought with sufficient information to apprise U.S. workers of services or labor to be performed and the anticipated period of employment of the job opportunity;
( d ) The wage offer, or in the event that there are multiple wage offers (such as where a master application will be filed by an association and/or where there are multiple crop activities for a single employer), the range of applicable wage offers and, where a master application will be filed by an association, a statement indicating that the rate(s) applicable to each employer can be obtained from the SWA;
( e ) The three-fourths guarantee specified in § 655.104(i);
( f ) If applicable, a statement that work tools, supplies, and equipment will be provided at no cost to the worker;
( g ) A statement that housing will be made available at no cost to workers, including U.S. workers, who cannot reasonably return to their permanent residence at the end of each working day;
( h ) If applicable, a statement that transportation and subsistence expenses to the worksite will be provided by the employer;
( i ) A statement that the position is temporary and a specification of the total number of job openings the employer intends to fill;
( j ) A statement directing applicants to report or send resumes to the SWA of the State in which the advertisement is run for referral to the employer;
( k ) Contact information for the applicable SWA and the job order number.
§ 408.505 How do we determine the amount of your SVB payment? ( a ) *Maximum SVB payment.* The maximum monthly SVB payment is equal to 75% of the FBR for an individual under title XVI of the Act. See § 416.410 of this chapter.
( b ) *Cost-of-living adjustments in the FBR.* The maximum SVB amount will increase whenever there is a cost-of-living increase in the SSI FBR under the provisions of § 416.405 of this chapter. The basic SVB amount following such an increase is equal to 75 percent of the increased FBR.
( c ) *When we will reduce the amount of your basic benefit.* We will reduce your basic benefit by the amount of the other benefit income you receive in that month, as explained in § 408.510.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of KEVIN JACQUES, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered March 18, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant was not required to pay or deny plaintiff's claims upon receipt of a "partial response" to defendant's verification requests (<i>see</i> 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; [b] [3]; <a href="../2004/2004_01750.htm" target="_blank"><i>New York &amp; Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 5 AD3d 568</a>, 570 [2004] ["A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided"]). To the extent that plaintiff asserts that certain of defendant's requests were inappropriate, that argument also lacks merit, as plaintiff did not allege, much less demonstrate, that it objected to such requests during claims processing (<a href="../2014/2014_50629.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Rogy Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.</i>, 43 Misc 3d 133</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50629[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014] ["inaction is an improper response to a verification request, and therefore plaintiff's objections regarding the requests will not now be heard"]).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's remaining contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the initial and follow-up verification requests had been properly mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]), and to demonstrate that defendant had not received the requested verification.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: October 05, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Anthony Bongiorno et al., Appellants, v. Delano Building Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Water quality in the glacialaquifer system, northern United States, 1993-2009**
 
Report | Dataarchive
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.4/2:1352
Item Number:0620-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000942719
 
April 25, 2018
#### Michael Crotty, Respondent, v. Erie Railroad Company, Appellant.

Motions for reargument and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ.
#### Mary R. Harris v. John Barton.

Filed February 2, 1898.

No. 7816.

■ 1. Bill of Exceptions: Authentication. A bill of exceiitions will not be considered unless authenticated by the clerk of 'the trial court.

2* : : Review. Assignments of error which are unavailing without a bill of ex&epUons will be disregarded where such bill is not authenticated according to the statute.

Error from the district court of Saline county. Tried below before Hastings, J.

*Affirmed.*

*569*Smith & McCreary*and *J. D. Pope,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles E. Sloan, contra.*

Norval, J.

This was an action of replevin by Mary R. Harris against John Barton to recover a number of buggies and wagons. From a verdict and judgment for the defendant the plaintiff prosecutes this proceeding.

The petition in error contained nine assignments. Three relate to rulings on the evidence, five are based ou the giving and- refusing of instructions, and one relates to the overruling of the motion for a new trial. These assignments are unavailing, for the reason their consideration involves an examination of the bill of exceptions, and the document attached to the transcript purporting to be the bill of exceptions is not authenticated by any certificate of the clerk of the trial court, as either the original bill or a copy thereof. *(Moore v. Waterman,*40 Neb. 498; *Wax v. State,*43 Neb. 18; *Yenny v. Central City Bank,*44 Neb. 402; *Martin v. Fillmore County,*44 Neb. 719; *Union P. R. Co. v. Kinney,*47 Neb. 393; *Romberg v. Fokken,*47 Neb. 198; *Derse v. Straus,*49 Neb. 665.) For the reason stated the judgment is

Affirmed. •
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
POSITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          30,462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  381,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,487
<INVENTORY>                                     79,161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               724,228
<PP&E>                                       3,717,557
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,335,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,633,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          947,195
<BONDS>                                      1,252,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          173,809
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           673
<OTHER-SE>                                     783,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,633,404
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,997,268
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,785,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,764
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                29,425
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                148,944
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,375
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            112,569
<DISCONTINUED>                                  37,771
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,340
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.23


</TABLE>
#### Nicholas Halmes, appellant, v. George E. Dovey, appellee.

Filed January 3, 1898.

No. 7565.

Review: Conflicting Evidence. Decree appealed from *held*to be sustained by sufficient, although conflicting, evidence.

Appeal from the district court of Cass county. Heard below before Chapman, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Byron Ciarlo,*for appellant.

*A. N. Sullivan, contra.*

Post, C. J.

This ivas an action in the district court for Cass county, the purpose of which ivas to compel the defendant Dovey to execute an alleged agreement for the release of certain lands from the operation of a judgment previously recovered by him against one Thomas, the plaintiff’s grantor. A final hearing in the district court resulted in' a finding and decree adverse to the plaintiff’s contention, and from which an appeal has been prosecuted in this court.

Appellant frankly concedes that the evidence, so far as it relates to the principal question at issue, viz., the agreement alleged as the foundation of the action, is conflicting and irreconcilable, but seeks to prove that the finding is so decidedly against the weight of the evidence as to require a reversal of the decree upon that ground, *255while counsel for appellee, with equal plausibility, defends the Ending as the logical and necessary result of the proofs adduced. It is clear, from a reading of the entire record, that the case is governed by the rule many times asserted by this court, viz., that a judgment or decree, unless manifestly wrong, will not be disturbed although the evidence may seem sufficient to support a, finding for the adverse party. A statement of the evidence would in this connection be without profit to any of the parties concerned and will accordingly not be attempted.

Decree affirmed.
### §3773. Measure of damages generally

In determining the amount of the award of damages for injuries to a vessel for which the Commission is determined to be liable, there may be included—

(1) the actual or estimated cost of repairs;

(2) charter hire actually lost by the owners, or charter hire actually paid, depending upon the terms of the charter party, for the time the vessel is undergoing repairs;

(3) maintenance of the vessel and wages of the crew, if they are found to be actual additional expenses or losses incurred outside of the charter hire; and

(4) other expenses which are definitely and accurately shown to have been incurred necessarily and by reason of the accident or injuries.

Agent's fees, or commissions, or other incidental expenses of similar character, or any items which are indefinite, indeterminable, speculative, or conjectural may not be allowed. The Commission shall be furnished such vouchers, receipts, or other evidence as may be necessary in support of any item of a claim. If a vessel is not operated under charter but by the owner directly, evidence shall be secured if available as to the sum for which vessels of the same size and class can be chartered in the market. If the charter value cannot be determined, the value of the vessel to its owners in the business in which it was engaged at the time of the injuries shall be used as a basis for estimating the damages for the vessel's detention; and the books of the owners showing the vessel's earnings about the time of the accident or injuries shall be considered as evidence of probable earnings during the time of detention. If the books are unavailable, such other evidence shall be furnished as may be necessary.

(Pub. L. 96–70, title I, §1413, Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 486.)
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 Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - III (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


              November 13, 2007              /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
              -----------------              -------------------------------
                    Date                     Joseph M. Jayson,
                                             Individual General Partner and
                                             Principal Financial Officer
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-775V

UNPUBLISHED

KELLY STEELE,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: October 29, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.

Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On June 25, 2020,Kelly Steele filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

October 2, 2018. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was 

administered within the United States, that she has suffered the residual effects of her 

injury for more than six months, and that neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever 

received compensation in the form of an award for her injury or filed an action for her 

injury. Petition at 1, 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office 

of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

On October 26, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 

1. Specifically, Respondent has concluded that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set 

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. Id. at 4. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master