alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PGI 204.7603 Procedures.

The Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) provides item risk, price risk, and supplier risk

assessment on end products and price risk and supplier risk assessment on services. SPRS provides

item and price risk for end products using the material identifiers listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)

through (v). SPRS also provides a supplier risk score for the contractor that provided the product or

services. The contracting officer may consider item risk, price risk, and supplier risk assessments to

determine the performance risk of the offeror or product and to assess the risk of ongoing

contractor performance.

(a) Item risk.

(1) SPRS provides the contracting officer warnings and mitigation strategies for end products

identified by military departments or defense agencies as high risk (due to diminishing

manufacturing sources and material shortages, history of counterfeiting, etc.). End products are

identified by one or more of the following material identifiers:

(i) National Stock Number (NSN).

(ii) Internet Blog Serial Number (IBSN).

(iii) Universal Product Code (UPC).

(iv) Global Standards 1 (GS1).

(v) Manufacturer Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) and part number.

(2) Presolicitation. For items identified as high risk in SPRS or by the requiring activity in purchase

requests, the contracting officer shall mitigate this risk by including a clause that addresses first

article approval or certificate of conformance in the solicitation or by applying other risk mitigation

strategies.

(b) Price risk. SPRS provides the contracting officer warning of possible over- or under-payment

risks based on historical purchase data.

(c) Supplier risk. SPRS provides the contracting officer a score for the assessment of the

contractor’s performance. The supplier risk score includes data associated with the contractor’s

quality and delivery data.

(d) Evaluation of quotations or offers for supplies. During the evaluation of the offers received for

supplies or services that contain supplies, the contracting officer shall consider the risk assessments

available in SPRS.

(e) Award and documentation.

(1) In determining a price fair and reasonable, the contracting officer shall review the price risk data

provided in SPRS and follow the procedures at FAR 13.106 or 15.4 to make an award decision. In

the event that price risk has been identified, the contracting officer shall perform further price

analysis.

(2) In assessing offeror performance capabilities, the contracting officer shall review the supplier
risk data provided in SPRS and tailor the contract oversight for risk. Mitigate supplier risk by—

(i) Including clauses to strengthen oversight (e.g., a clause that addresses first article testing or

certificate of conformance); and

(ii) Removing discretionary clauses to recognize successful performance (e.g., a clause that

addresses first article testing).

(3) The contracting officer shall document the contract file on any action taken as a result of

information obtained from SPRS.

Parent topic: PGI 204.76 -SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE RISK SYSTEM
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00436-CV

Carroll Craig Bolin and Mary 

Kathalina Bolin

v.

First State Bank

§

§

§

§

From the 271st District Court

of Wise County (CV13-05-429)

March 13, 2014

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
      June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, William B. Horne, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
      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
      Registrant.





Dated:
                August 19, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                William B. HorneWilliam
                B. HorneChief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of March1, 2013 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as General Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB as NCB MasterServicer, NCB, FSB as Co-op Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and asCustodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank NationalAssociation as Trustee relating to the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust2013-C12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C12 **(WFRBS2013-C12)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer")hereincertifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018to December 31, 2018 (the"Reporting Period")in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the terms of the Pooling andServicing Agreement,in all material respects for the Reporting Periodand if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specificallyidentified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
(July 7, 1969)

#### Nicholas Benyo, Jr., Appellant, v. Gilbert Gottlieb et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, both dated January 31, 1969, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. (See *Kruteck*v. *Schimmel,*27 A D 2d 837.) Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      I,  Hiram M.  Lazar,  as  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Franklin  Capital
Corporation (the "COMPANY") certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (1)   the  accompanying  Form 10-Q report for the period ending  September
30,  2003 as  filed  with the  U.S.  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (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.



Dated:  November 14, 2003        /s/ Hiram M. Lazar
                                 -----------------------
                                 Hiram M. Lazar
                                 Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Franklin  Capital  Corporation  and will be  retained  by Franklin
Capital  Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
**Exhibit23.1** 

 

Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

TheBoard of Directors and Stockholders Nxt-ID, Inc.:

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No. 333-209001, 333-206955 and 333-204026 on Form S-3of Nxt-ID, Inc. and subsidiary (the Company) of our report dated April 14, 2016 with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof Nxt-ID, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 and the related consolidated statements of operations, changesin stockholders’ equity (deficiency), and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31,2015 annual report on Form 10-K of Nxt-ID, Inc. and subsidiary.

 

Ourreport dated April 14, 2016 contains an explanatory paragraph that states the Company has incurred recurring losses from operationsthat raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not includeany adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

 

/s/KPMG LLP

 

Stamford,Connecticut

April13, 2017
§ 76.68 Plant changes. ( a ) The Corporation may make changes to the plant or to the plant's operations as described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval provided all the provisions of this section are met: ( 1 ) The Corporation shall conduct a written safety analysis which demonstrates that the changes would not result in undue risk to public health and safety, the common defense and security, or to the environment.
( 2 ) The changes must be authorized by responsible management and approved by a safety review committee.
( 3 ) The changes may not decrease effectiveness of the plant's safety, safeguards, and security programs.
( 4 ) The changes may not involve a change in any condition to the certificate of compliance.
( 5 ) The changes may not involve a change to any condition to the approved compliance plan.
( 6 ) The changes may not involve an unreviewed safety question.
( b ) To ensure that the approved application remains current with respect to the actual site description and that the plant's programs, plans, policies, and operations are in place, the Corporation shall submit revised pages to the approved application and safety analysis report, marked and dated to indicate each change. The Corporation shall evaluate any as-found conditions that do not agree with the plant's programs, plans, policies, and operations in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section. These revisions must be submitted before April 15 of each calendar year, or at a shorter interval as may be specified in the certificate. If a renewal application for a certificate is filed in accordance with § 76.36 of this part, the revisions shall be incorporated into the application.
( c ) The Corporation shall maintain records of changes in the plant and of changes in the programs, plans, policies, procedures and operations described in the approved application, and copies of the safety analyses on which the changes were based. The records of plant changes must be retained until the end of the duration of the lease. The records of changes in programs, plans, policies, procedures, and operations and copies of the safety analysis on which the changes were based must be retained for a period of 2 years.
( d ) The Corporation may at any time apply under § 76.45 for amendment of the certificate to cover proposed new or modified activities not permitted by paragraph (a) of this section.
[59 FR 48960, Sept. 23, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 6670, Feb. 12, 1997]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

November 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135061 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr.

_____________ _______________ ____________ Stephen J. Markman, Justices IN RE MEGAN BOSHAW, Minor.

_____________ _______________ ____________
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 135061 COA: 275465 Oakland CC

WALLACE LEE BOSHAW, JR., Respondent, Family Division: 04-694800-NA

and

BROOK ALISON BOSHAW, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 20, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s1030 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 2, 2007
Clerk
§ 609.9 Lender servicing requirements. ( a ) When reviewing and evaluating a proposed Eligible Project, all Eligible Lenders (other than the Federal Financing Bank) shall at all times exercise the level of care and diligence that a reasonable and prudent lender would exercise when reviewing, evaluating, and disbursing a loan made by it without a Federal guarantee.
( b ) Loan servicing duties shall be performed by an Eligible Lender, DOE, or another qualified loan servicer approved by DOE. When performing its servicing duties, the loan servicer shall at all times exercise the level of care and diligence that a reasonable and prudent lender would exercise when servicing a loan made without a Federal guarantee, including: ( 1 ) During the construction period, monitoring the satisfaction of all of the conditions precedent to all loan disbursements, as provided in the Loan Guarantee Agreement, Loan Agreement, or related documents;
( 2 ) During the operational phase, monitoring and servicing the Guaranteed Obligations and collection of the outstanding principal and accrued interest as well as undertaking to ensure that the collateral package securing the Guaranteed Obligations remains uncompromised; and
( 3 ) Until the Guaranteed Obligations have been repaid, providing annual or more frequent financial and other reports on the status and condition of the Guaranteed Obligations and the Eligible Project, and promptly notifying DOE if it becomes aware of any problems or irregularities concerning the Eligible Project or the ability of the Borrower to make payment on the Guaranteed Obligations or its other debt obligations.
EXHIBIT 35.2  LOGO Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1123 Pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, a review of the Exela Technologies, Inc. activities during the year ended December 31, 2018 (the
Reporting Period) and of its performance under the servicing agreement between Exela Technologies, Inc. and American Express (the Servicing Agreement) has been made under the undersigned officers
supervision. To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Exela Technologies, Inc. has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  /s/ Thomas K. Dolan
Thomas K. DolanVP Information Security and Risk February 14, 2019
August 28, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROY MATA AND GILBERT E. GARCIA, Appellants

NO. 14-12-00517-CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO 

WELLS FARGO BANK SOUTHWEST, NA F/K/A 

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB F/K/A WORLD SAVINGS BANK, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed 

by the court below on May 8, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Roy Mata and Gilbert E. Garcia, jointly and severally.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 820.27 Answer. ( a ) *General.* If a respondent files a request for an on-the-record adjudication pursuant to § 820.25, a written answer to the Final Notice of Violation shall be filed at the same time the request is filed.
( b ) *Contents of the answer.* The answer shall clearly and directly admit, deny or explain each of the factual allegations contained in the Final Notice of Violation with regard to which respondent has any knowledge, information or belief. Where respondent has no knowledge, information or belief of a particular factual allegation and so states, the allegation is deemed denied. The answer shall also state the circumstance or argument that is alleged to constitute the grounds of defense and the facts that respondent intends to place at issue.
( c ) *Failure to admit, deny, or explain.* Failure of respondent to admit, deny, or explain any material factual allegation contained in the Final Notice of Violation constitutes an admission of the allegation.
( d ) *Amendment of the answer.* The respondent may amend the answer to the Final Notice of Violation upon motion granted by the Presiding Officer.
**GAO-04-392SP**                      Published: Jan 01, 2004. Publicly Released: Jan 01, 2004.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

This is a best practices pamphlet discussing the highlights of the knowledge-based approach to improving weapons acquisition. It reviews the manufacturing processes through three phases, (1) technology development, (2) product development, and (3) production.

Request File

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Science and Technology

Best practicesManufacturing industryProduct evaluationWeaponsBest practices methodologyManufacturingTechnology developmentProduct development
227 So.2d 146

#### NEW ORLEANS UNITY SOCIETY OF PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY v. STANDARD ROOFING COMPANY, Inc.

No. 50054.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: Standard Roofing Company, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 224 So.2d 60.

The application is • denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
§ 824.12 Conduct of the hearing. ( a ) DOE shall make a transcript of the hearing;
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the Hearing Officer may receive any oral or documentary evidence, but shall exclude irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence;
( c ) Witnesses shall testify under oath and are subject to cross-examination, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section;
( d ) The Hearing Officer must use procedures appropriate to safeguard and prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified information or any other information protected from public disclosure by law or regulation, with minimum impairment of rights and obligations under this part. The classified or otherwise protected status of any information shall not, however, preclude its being introduced into evidence. The Hearing Officer may issue such orders as may be necessary to consider such evidence *in camera* including the preparation of a supplemental initial decision to address issues of law or fact that arise out of that portion of the evidence that is classified or otherwise protected.
( e ) DOE has the burden of going forward with and of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred as set forth in the final notice of violation and that the proposed civil penalty is appropriate. The person to whom the final notice of violation has been addressed shall have the burden of presenting and of going forward with any defense to the allegations set forth in the final notice of violation. Each matter of controversy shall be determined by the Hearing Officer upon a preponderance of the evidence.
EXHIBIT 35.1

VW Credit, Inc. Servicer Compliance Statement Under Section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing

Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB





VOLKSWAGEN AUTO
LOAN ENHANCED TRUST 2013-1

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of VW Credit, Inc. (VCI), as Servicer under the Sale and Servicing
Agreement dated as of February 27, 2013 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the Sale and Servicing Agreement), by and among Volkswagen Auto Loan Enhanced Trust 2013-1, as Issuer,
Volkswagen Auto Lease/Loan Underwritten Funding, LLC as Seller, VW Credit, Inc., as Servicer, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Indenture Trustee, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this twenty-seventh day of March, 2015.



/s/ Horst MeimaHorst MeimaExecutive Vice President & CFO