alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
z*> rwg cdU^TM fajbf/jfo/-APA&/js Pj*/)£Xj3£tt1/>/tf/J S'/yi/TZT j, COA a/& ; Ab ~A$15- /£



### 2a/'Jtibjl/c/jl' /MAAcM' 30j 10/5j S/z6f?dd£%k &AD-S& fJeJ -A0 rtz faA/-££?mjaJ-J V/)djjL&j&*M £e/jl/'0j JMegte/* |N 

### /UlJjte £o4£t0t Q/tin4SA/A/ Mfij&/j>0^/£>4/&. 4^ ' ^ N MoTifijJ JjjJjtiOAf Mm/ted'£xJza/s/0A> £m0m*?-+ *„,~ 

### jtfti/itijMfaJZjfe' 22, 4.0/IT. .MAY 222015 A A / Aj?8' Acosta> Clerk A) a QcP)t /Mac/i/aJ&j 0/1 /am&Uz/s Ha fa/rfj/V A> Jss ts>J J/m 

### ]Wr/A D&J*/M//V9 ^fft/eP, 

### MA+$Jtf/h/^-ftA£&AA£jP/rf&lS Ja/c//Mo7J0Ak /OA t/A£ £auJdrtf-iS /s$ja £/* OdjQ/J ^0 jud C.Qj)/£3s 

### LdA&jJh/u;* j0gfrf?0Ai£/i -Pju&-rtdji/j D0jj*{GmJ 

## ^M^ MfojJ Md JiJsJ/Za/c/A,/£ 9f$ IA)jtaJj0/£fc/r0At£r/2X


# oounraFijSgL RECEIVED IN M^yfi """S €OUWTCFCfllMlWAt_ APPEALS MAY a 0 2015 toita,Ctoik
7/28/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­1894

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­1894

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:47 AM

To: nsacharow@verizon.net

Dear Mr. Sacharow:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA­2015­1894).

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e., fixed‐wing, rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the proposed UAS

operation. The description should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be

located in the aircraft manual.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 8/11/15. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­9677.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking
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
March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Steven H. Kane, 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:
      May 20, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Steven H. KaneSteven
      H. KaneChief
      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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FATMATA SESAY OSIAS, AKA Fatmata

Sesay,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

erroneously sued as Santa Clara County

Valley Medical Center,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 15140

D.C. No. 5:16

- cv

- 03761

- EJD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Fatmata Sesay Osias , AKA Fatmata Sesay, appeal s pro se from the district

court’ s summary judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title

VII

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1 291. We review de novo. Zetwick

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JUL 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15140

v. County of Yolo , 850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Osias’s retaliation

claim based on her March 2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

charge be cause Osias failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether defendant’s legitimate, non

- retaliatory reasons for its adverse actions were

pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc. , 274 F.3d 1276,

1284 (9th Cir. 2001) ( explaining burden

- shifting framework for Title VII

retaliation claims and requirements for establishing pretext ) ; see also Little v.

Windermere Relocation, Inc ., 30 1 F.3d 958, 969 (9th Cir. 2002) ( a p la intiff must

offer “specific, substantial evidence of pretext ” (citation omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Osias’s contentions regarding the

authentic ity of defendant’s evidence and that the district court failed to consider

her evidence at summary judgment

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED

.
#### In the Matter of Henry Diaz, Appellant, v. James Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York and Vincencio Gentelesco, Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McGivern and Steuer, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 712
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 712 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

§ 712.31 Purpose. The standards and procedures set forth in this subpart are necessary for DOE to: ( a ) Identify the presence of any mental/personality disorders, physical, or behavioral characteristics or conditions that present or are likely to present an unacceptable impairment in reliability;
( b ) Facilitate the early diagnosis and treatment of disease or impairment and foster accommodation and rehabilitation;
( c ) Determine what functions an HRP-certified individual may be able to perform and to facilitate the proper placement of individuals; and
( d ) Provide for continuing monitoring of the health status of individuals to facilitate early detection and correction of adverse health effects, trends, or patterns.
# EUR-Lex - 31986D0375 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31986D0375

**86/375/EEC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1986 fixing the agro-economic trend coefficient to be used for defining the European size unit in connection with the Community typology for agricultural holdings **

*
Official Journal L 223 , 09/08/1986 P. 0046 - 0046 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 21 P. 0232 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 21 P. 0232 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 22 July 1986

fixing the agro-economic trend coefficient to be used for defining the European size unit in connection with the Community typology for agricultural holdings

(86/375/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 79/65/EEC of 15 June 1965 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Economic Community (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3644/85 (2),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1463/84 of 24 May 1984 on the organization of surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings for 1985 and for 1987 (3), and in particular Article 6 (2) thereof,

Whereas Annex III to Commission Decision 85/377/EEC of 7 June 1985 establishing a Community typology for agricultural holdings (4) defines the European size unit; whereas the definition refers to a coefficient to take account of global agro-economic trends since the reference period '1980'; whereas the coefficient is to be calculated by the Commission and fixed after consultation with the Member States and whereas such consultation has taken place at the meetings of the Group of Experts 'Typology for Agricultural Holdings',

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The agro-economic trend coefficient used for defining the European size unit as provided for in Annex III (A) (2) to Decision 85/377/EEC is hereby fixed, for the trend between the reference periods '1980' and '1982', at 1.1.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1986.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No 109, 23. 6. 1965, p. 1859/65.

(2) OJ No L 348, 24. 12. 1985, p. 4.

(3) OJ No L 142, 29. 5. 1984, p. 3.

(4) OJ No L 220, 17. 8. 1985, p. 32.
(1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying 

appellant's motion. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

Parraauirre 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge 

Craig A. Bingaman 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

J. 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,959
<SECURITIES>                                   435,754
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,462,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                    64,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,850,866
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,850,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          274,605
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,576,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,850,605
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,118
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,595
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,595
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 70.20 General license to own special nuclear material.

A general license is hereby issued to receive title to and own special nuclear material without regard to quantity. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a general licensee under this section is not authorized to acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use, transfer, import, or export special nuclear material, except as authorized in a specific license.

[33 FR 9810, July 9, 1968]
#### In the Matter of Michael Coffin, Appellant, v. Samuel Seltzer, as Director of Masten Park Rehabilitation Center, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By order dated June 23, 1967 appellant was certified pursuant to the provisions of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law (as amd. by L. 1966, eh. 192) to the custody of the New York State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission for a period noi to exceed 36 months. The sole *875contention presented upon this appeal from a judgment dismissing a writ of habeas corpus is that the committing Judge failed to inform appellant that his confinement might extend to such period of 36 months. (Cf. Mental Hygiene Law, § 206, subd. 4, as amd. by L. 1966, ch. 192.) We have examined the stenographic transcript of the proceedings held on June 23, 1967 Special Term, Part II, New York County (Waltemade, J.), which was not before Erie County Court at the time of the hearing on the petition for habeas corpus relief, and find there is no merit to the issue presented. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court dismissing writ of habeas corpus.) Present—-Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Kunal K. Singh,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the J.P. MorganChase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-C10 (the "Exchange Actperiodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described insuch reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,C-III Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as SeniorTrust Advisor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Primary Servicer for the West County Center Mortgage Loan,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer for the West County CenterMortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee for the WestCounty Center Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian for the West County Center Mortgage Loan, and Pentalpha SurveillanceLLC, as Senior Trust Advisor for the West County Center Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 18, 2020

 

 

/s/ Kunal K. Singh

 

 

President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
228 So.2d 483

#### Marion W. FINUF v. Edward E. JOHNSON.

No. 50180.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Edward E. Johnson applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bossier. 226 So.2d 585.

Application refused. The judgment is. correct.
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER In re S Kanjia Minor Docket No. 320055 LC No. I 1-053881 -NA Stephen L. Borrello Presiding Judge Deborah A. Servitto Douglas B. Shapiro

Judges The Court orders that the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Cou rt's opinion issued October 2 1, 2014 is hereby VACA T ED . A new op inion is attached to this order.

A true copy e nte r ed and cer t ified by Jerome W . Zimmer Jr., Ch ief Clerk , on 

# DEC 3 

# o 2014 Date
# EUR-Lex - 31988D0206 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31988D0206

**88/206/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 February 1988 approving the plan relating to the examination for hormone residues submitted by the Netherlands (Only the Dutch text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 094 , 12/04/1988 P. 0032 - 0032 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 18 February 1988

approving the plan relating to the examination for hormone residues submitted by the Netherlands

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

(88/206/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by document of 16 July 1987, the Netherlands sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I (A), Groups I and II to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I (A), Groups I and II to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by the Netherlands is hereby approved.

Article 2

The Netherlands shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 1988.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
ELECTRONIC RECORD

154¥-/V

COA# 03-12-00466-CR

Lester Ray Guy v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED

OFFENSE: 19.03

COUNTY: Travis

TRIAL COURT: 331st District Court

DATE: 10/22/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: D-l-DC-10-302548

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Lester Ray Guy v. The State of Texas

MPSt-U^NT^S Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

s DATE: n. 5"

JUDGE:

CCA#: l5M-/¥

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
§ 73.61 Relief from fingerprinting and criminal history records check for designated categories of individuals permitted unescorted access to certain radioactive materials or other property. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's regulations, fingerprinting and the identification and criminal history records checks required by section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, are not required for the following individuals prior to granting unescorted access to radioactive materials or other property that the Commission determines by regulation or order to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks: ( a ) An employee of the Commission or of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government who has undergone fingerprinting for a prior U.S. Government criminal history check;
( b ) A Member of Congress;
( c ) An employee of a member of Congress or Congressional committee who has undergone fingerprinting for a prior U.S. Government criminal history check;
( d ) The Governor of a State or his or her designated State employee representative;
( e ) Federal, State, or local law enforcement personnel;
( f ) State Radiation Control Program Directors and State Homeland Security Advisors or their designated State employee representatives;
( g ) Agreement State employees conducting security inspections on behalf of the NRC pursuant to an agreement executed under section 274.i. of the Atomic Energy Act;
( h ) Representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) engaged in activities associated with the U.S./IAEA Safeguards Agreement who have been certified by the NRC.
[72 FR 4948, Feb. 2, 2007]
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: 

 Project No.: 0317.02.005.520 Page 1 of 1 

 Project Name: 2015 Annual Review – Preliminary 

Category Review OCPSF (PSC 414) CBI? 

 Yes 

 No 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Incoming 

 Outgoing 

Date: 12/22/2014 Time: 11:00 am 

 pm 

Company Name: Viskase Corporation (Loudon, TN) ERG Staff Name: Elizabeth Gentile 

Contact Name: Michael Yoder, Viskase Corporation Contact Phone Number: (865) 458-2071 

General Subject: 2013 TRI Carbon Disulfide Releases from Viskase Corporation 

TRI ID: 37774VSKSCEASTL 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

Based on a review of Viskase Corporation (in Loudon, TN) on EPA’s Envirofacts website, I identified Mr. P.J. 

Glarrow as the TRIS contact for the facility. I called Mr. Glarrow on December 22, 2014 to discuss the carbon 

disulfide indirect releases reported by the facility in the 2013 TRI. Mr. Glarrow directed me to Michael Yoder. 

I called and left a message for Mr. Yoder on December 22, 2014 at 11:00 AM to discuss the carbon disulfide 

releases. 

I called and left a message for Mr. Yoder on January 6, 2015 at 11:00 AM. 

I called and left a message for Mr. Yoder on January 9, 2015 at 10:50 AM. 

I called and left a message for Mr. Yoder on January 14, 2015 at 9:30 AM. 

Mr. Yoder returned my call on January 21, 2015 and stated that he thought the carbon disulfide releases were 

likely overestimated and that he would follow up with me. Mr. Yoder did not provide any additional 

information or respond to my request.