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





**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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, 2006 (the “Report”) of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Milton “Todd” Ault III, as the Chief Executive 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 21, 2006
            
            /s/
              Milton “Todd” Ault IIIMilton “Todd” Ault III
              Chief Executive 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)Wells Fargo

 

**CorporateTrust Services**

MACR1204-010

9062Old Annapolis Road

Columbia,MD 21045

 

Telephone:410 884 2000

Fax:410 715 2380

 

 

**AnnualStatement of Compliance**

 

 

Perthe applicable Servicing Agreement for the transaction listed on Schedule Ihereto, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,in its applicable capacity as listed on Schedule I ("Wells Fargo"),hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2019 (the"Reporting Period"):

 

(a)      A review of WellsFargo’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theapplicable Servicing Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision;and

 

(b)     To the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the applicable Servicing Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period, except as noted in Schedule I.

 

 

February12, 2020

 

 

/s/Brian Smith

BrianSmith

VicePresident

 

/s/PattiSpencer

PattiSpencer

AssistantSecretary

 

 

©2019 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. All rights reserved.

 

 

**ScheduleI:**

| ** **

**Transaction**                                                                                                 | ** **

**Servicing  Agreement**     | ** **

**Servicing  Agreement Date** | ** **

**Wells Fargo  Capacity(ies)** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|  

Wells Fargo  Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass- Through  Certificates, Series 2013-C12 |  

Pooling and  Servicing Agreement |  

03/01/2013                        |  

Certificate  Administrator         |

 

 

**MaterialInstance(s) of Non-Compliance**

 

Listof exemptions for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., CommercialMortgage Pass- Through Certificates, Series 2013-C12:

 

OnNovember 18, 2019, Wells Fargo made a distribution (the "NovemberDistribution") to the holders of the certificates of the Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2013-C12. The November Distribution contained a paymenterror that resulted in the underpayment to one CUSIP totaling approximately$49,400. The payment error resulted from an administrative error during a DWACprocessing. The impact of this error was limited to the November Distribution.

 

OnDecember 9, 2019, the November Distribution was revised to correct the paymenterror, whereby funds were distributed to the underpaid CUSIP. To preventfurther similar payment errors, Wells Fargo has incorporated additional controlprocedures.
#### LAYDEN, Appellant, v. KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Edwin Layden against the Knickerbocker Ice Company.

PER CURIAM.

Motion denied, with leave to apply to the Special Term." While the Appellate Division, as a condition of not dismissing an appeal, may limit the time to serve a case or perfect an appeal, motions to extend the time to make and serve a case are properly made at Special Term. Odell v. McGrath, 16 App. Div. 103, 45 N. Y. Supp. 119; Matter of Stafford, 21 App. Div. 476, 47 N. Y. Supp. 688.
§ 835.1001 Design and control. ( a ) Measures shall be taken to maintain radiation exposure in controlled areas ALARA through engineered and administrative controls. The primary methods used shall be physical design features (e.g., confinement, ventilation, remote handling, and shielding). Administrative controls shall be employed only as supplemental methods to control radiation exposure.
( b ) For specific activities where use of engineered controls is demonstrated to be impractical, administrative controls shall be used to maintain radiation exposures ALARA.
[63 FR 59686, Nov. 4, 1998, as amended at 72 FR 31927, June 8, 2007]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 480 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 480

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 7, 2005.
    Resolved, That the Speaker, in consultation with the Minority Leader, may 
designate individuals to be admitted to the Hall of the House and the rooms 
leading thereto in order to obtain film footage of the House in session for 
inclusion in the orientation film to be shown to visitors at the Capitol Visitor 
Center.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 905.13 When must IRPs be submitted? ( a ) *Submitting the initial IRP.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, customers that have not previously had an IRP approved by Western must submit the initial IRP to the appropriate Regional Manager no later than 1 year after May 1, 2000, or after becoming a customer, whichever is later.
( b ) *Updates and amendments to IRPs.* Customers must submit updated IRPs to the appropriate Regional Manager every 5 years after Western's approval of the initial IRP. Customers that complied with Western's IRP regulations in effect before May 1, 2000 must maintain their submission and resubmission schedules previously in effect. Customers may submit amendments and revisions to IRPs at any time.
( c ) *IRP cooperatives.* Customers with geographic, resource supply, and other similarities may join together and request, in writing, Western's approval to become an IRP cooperative. Western will respond to IRP cooperative status requests within 30 days of receiving a request. If Western disapproves a request for IRP cooperative status, the requesting participants must maintain their currently applicable integrated resource or small customer plans, or submit the initial IRPs no later than 1 year after the date of the disapproval letter. Western's approval of IRP cooperative status will not be based on any potential participant's contractual status with Western. Each IRP cooperative must submit an IRP for its participants within 18 months after Western approves IRP cooperative status.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-QSB
JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         189,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,106,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (35,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    792,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,078,831
<PP&E>                                       1,467,853
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,103,964)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,735,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,987,241
<BONDS>                                        224,983
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       265,332
<OTHER-SE>                                     257,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,735,420
<SALES>                                      3,334,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,334,717
<CGS>                                        1,761,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,761,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,696,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (218,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (218,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7077
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus CASHMERE CAZEAU, Defendant - Appellant.
Ap p e a l f r o mt h e U n i t e dS t a t e s D i s t r i c tC o u r tf o rt h e E a s t ern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-131) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 1, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cashmere Cazeau, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cashmere Cazeau seeks to appeal the dis t r i c t court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in
a§2 2 5 5 p r o c e e d i n gu n l e s s ac i r c u i tj u s t i c e o rj u d g e i s sues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is d e b atable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (200 0 ) ; Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th C i r. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cazeau has not made the requisite showing.

Additionally, we construe Cazeau’s notice of appeal and informal brief o n appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional la w , previously- 3 -

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to
e s t a b l ish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Cazeau’s claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.

For these reasons, we deny a c e r t i ficate of appealability, decline to authorize Cazeau to file a successive § 2255 motion, and dismiss the app e a l . W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
### Biological Soil Crusts: Webs of Life in the Desert

By: Jayne Belnap**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs06501

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (304 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 74.6 Communications. Any communication or report concerning the regulations in this part and any application filed under these regulations may be submitted to the Commission as follows: ( a ) By mail addressed to: ATTN: Document Control Desk, Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
( b ) By hand delivery to the NRC's offices at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
( c ) Where practicable, by electronic submission, for example, via Electronic Information Exchange, or CD-ROM. Electronic submissions must be made in a manner that enables the NRC to receive, read, authenticate, distribute, and archive the submission, and process and retrieve it a single page at a time. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions can be obtained by visiting the NRC's Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html ;* by e-mail to *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov ;* or by writing the Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The guidance discusses, among other topics, the formats the NRC can accept, the use of electronic signatures, and the treatment of nonpublic information.
[50 FR 7579, Feb. 25, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 4112, Feb. 12, 1988; 53 FR 43422, Oct. 27, 1988; 68 FR 58821, Oct. 10, 2003; 74 FR 62685, Dec. 1, 2009; 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015]
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63701-63702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26518]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7646]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Diego Rivera: Murals for the Museum of Modern Art''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Diego Rivera: Murals for The Museum of 
Modern Art,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about November 13, 
2011, until on or about May 14, 2012, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The

[[Page 63702]]

mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor 
(Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 7, 2011.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-26518 Filed 10-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Latonia Ladson, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant, FAA Auto Sales, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Sunrise *865Holding Co., LLP, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. HSBC USA Inc., Third-Party Defendant and Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Trammel Crow Corporate Services, Inc., Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 532]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 13, 2004, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the second third-party defendant Trammel Crow Corporate Services, Inc., separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the cross motions are granted, the complaint and all cross claims insofar as against the defendant City of New York are dismissed, the second third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the second third-party defendant Trammel Crow Corporate Services, Inc., are dismissed, and the actions as against the remaining parties are severed.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she stepped in a hole in the sidewalk and fell. She commenced this action against, among others, the defendants City of New York and Sunrise Holding Co., LLP (hereinafter Sunrise). Sunrise is the owner of one of two properties allegedly abutting the sidewalk at issue. Sunrise commenced a third-party action against HSBC USA, Inc. (hereinafter HSBC), its tenant, and HSBC commenced a second third-party action against Trammel Crow Corporate Services, Inc. (hereinafter Trammel Crow), the property manager for the premises.

In opposition to the City’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471 [1999]; *Walker v Incorporated Vil. of Northport,*304 AD2d 823 [2003]). Thus, the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as against it should have been granted.

In opposition to Trammel Crow’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, HSBC failed to *866raise a triable issue of fact *(see Jordan v City of New York,*23 AD3d 436 [2005]; *Adorno v Carty,*23 AD3d 590 [2005]). Thus, Trammel Crow’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Mastro, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
# L_2023172EN.01004201.xml

| 6.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 172/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 172/42

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 115/2020

of 6 August 2020

amending Annex XV (State Aid) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1375]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/972 of 2 July 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 as regards its prolongation and amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 as regards its prolongation and relevant adjustments (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/972 of 2 July 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 as regards its prolongation and amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 as regards its prolongation and relevant adjustments (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XV to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XV to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex XV to the EEA Agreement shall be amended as follows:

| 1. | The following is added in point 1ea (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013):

  ‘, as amended by:






  — | 32020 R 0972: Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/972 of 2 July 2020 (OJ L 215, 7.7.2020, p. 3).’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The following is added in point 1ea (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013):

‘, as amended by:

—

32020 R 0972: Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/972 of 2 July 2020 (OJ L 215, 7.7.2020, p. 3).’

| 2. | The following indent is added in point 1j (Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014):






  ‘— | 32020 R 0972: Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/972 of 2 July 2020 (OJ L 215, 7.7.2020, p. 3).’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The following indent is added in point 1j (Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014):

‘—

32020 R 0972: Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/972 of 2 July 2020 (OJ L 215, 7.7.2020, p. 3).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2020/972 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 6 August 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 6 August 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 215, 7.7.2020, p. 3.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---