alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1. kao ______________

2. pasen ____________

3. loprap ____________

4. plape_____________

5. braplacpe _________

6. crihb _____________

7. eplma ____________

8. wloliw ____________

9. dowosasb

_________________

10. oxb dreel

______________

What kinds of trees do gypsy moths like best? 

To find out, unscramble the trees this caterpillar ate.

What’s the number one tree pest in the USA? It’s the

gypsy moth caterpillar. These large, hungry pests

eat the leaves of trees in early summer. This is the

hardest time for trees to repair themselves. Gypsy moth

caterpillars damage and kill trees.

Gypsy moth caterpillars also bug humans. In early

summer, they hang and drop from trees. They mess

up outdoor areas where humans like to relax. Their 

hair also causes allergic reactions in some people.

Travelers and campers beware! Check your belongings for gypsy mothcaterpillars and pupal cases. Don’t give gypsy moths a ride to other forest areas!

WORD BANK

Tip for Grown-ups:

When planting trees, chose species that gypsy moths don’t eat. Try Ash, Dogwood,

Juniper, Lilac, Sycamore, Arborvitae, Honeylocust, or Northern Catalpa.

Learn to identify the gypsy moth in every stage of development.

Number the life cycle stages in right order, from egg to adult.

Monster Caterpillar

#

apple

aspen

basswood

birch

maple

crabapple

oak

poplar

box elder

willow

18 United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003

A B # C # D #

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/morgantown/4557/gmoth/
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of ImClone
Systems Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Michael J. Howerton, Vice President, Finance and Business
Development, Secretary and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/   MICHAEL J. HOWERTON
------------------------------
Michael J. Howerton
Acting Chief Financial Officer
June 23, 2003
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 361 

Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Veterans 

Administration on July 21, 1930. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2005 

Mr. BUYER (for himself and Mr. EVANS) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the establishment of 

the Veterans Administration on July 21, 1930. 

Whereas in the history of the United States, more than 

48,000,000 citizen-soldiers have served the Nation in uniform, of whom more than 1,000,000 gave their lives as 

a consequence of their duties; 

Whereas as of July 21, 2005, there are more than 

25,000,000 living veterans; 

Whereas the Nation’s obligation to its veterans is encapsulated in the following words of President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, delivered on March 4, 

1865, ‘‘. . . to care for him who shall have borne the 

battle and for his widow and his orphan’’; 
2 

•HRES 361 IH 

Whereas on July 21, 1930, President Herbert Hoover issued 

an executive order creating a new agency, the Veterans 

Administration, to ‘‘consolidate and coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans’’; 

Whereas on October 25, 1988, President Ronald Reagan 

signed into law the Department of Veterans Affairs Act 

(Public Law 100–527) under which, effective as of March 

15, 1989, the Veterans Administration was established as 

an executive department and redesignated as the Department of Veterans Affairs, with the mission of providing 

Federal benefits to veterans and their families; and 

Whereas in 2005, the 230,000 employees of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs continue the tradition of their predecessors, caring for the Nation’s veterans with dedication 

and compassion and upholding the high standards required of them as stewards of the public’s gratitude to 

those veterans: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 75th anniversary of the es3 tablishment of the Veterans’ Administration; and 

4 (2) acknowledges the achievements of the em5 ployees of the Veterans Administration and the De6 partment of Veterans Affairs and commends them 

7 for their contributions to the Nation’s veterans. 

Æ
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 September 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. ss. 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:  December 19, 2006                   /s/ MILTON "TODD" AULT III
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Milton "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.
**Texas**

**Texas 07 Bell**
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.43 Final notice of violation. ( a ) If a contractor submits a written reply within 30 calendar days of receipt of a preliminary notice of violation (PNOV), that presents a disagreement with any aspect of the PNOV and civil penalty, the Enforcement Director must review the submitted reply and make a final determination whether the contractor violated or is continuing to violate a requirement of this part.
( b ) Based on a determination by the Enforcement Director that a contractor has violated or is continuing to violate a requirement of this part, the Enforcement Director may issue to the contractor a final notice of violation that states concisely the determined violation and any remedy, including the amount of any civil penalty imposed on the contractor. The final notice of violation must state that the contractor may petition the Office of Hearings and Appeals for review of the final notice in accordance with 10 CFR part 1003.
( c ) If a contractor fails to submit a petition for review to the Office of Hearings and Appeals within 30 calendar days of receipt of a final notice of violation pursuant to § 851.42: ( 1 ) The contractor relinquishes any right to appeal any matter in the final notice; and
( 2 ) The final notice, including any remedies therein, constitutes a final order.
[71 FR 6931, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023]
§ 710.7 Application of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. ( a ) The decision on an access authorization request is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting or continuation of access authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. Any doubt as to an individual's access authorization eligibility shall be resolved in favor of the national security.
( b ) All such determinations shall be based upon the application of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (Adjudicative Guidelines), or any successor national standard issued under authority of the President.
( c ) Each Adjudicative Guideline sets forth a series of concerns that may create a doubt regarding an individual's eligibility for access authorization. In resolving these concerns, all DOE officials involved in the decision-making process shall consider: The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the voluntariness of participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors.
( d ) If the investigative results report of an individual or other reliable information tend to establish the validity and significance of one or more areas of concern as set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines, such information shall be regarded as derogatory and create a question as to the individual's access authorization eligibility. Absent any derogatory information, a favorable determination will be made as to access authorization eligibility.
[81 FR 71335, Oct. 17, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 57107, Dec. 4, 2017; 89 FR 59596, July 23, 2024]
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1,2013, by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent andCustodian, NS Servicing II, LLC as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, asTrust Advisor and U.S. Bank, National Association as Trustee, with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C8 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section13.9 of the Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.           A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.           To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2019.

 

 

/s/ Leslie Hayton

Leslie Hayton 

Managing Director

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
August 28 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROY MATA AND GILBERT E. GARCIA , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 12

- 00517

- CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK SOU THWEST, NA F/K/A WACHOVIA MORTG AGE 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 appellant s , Roy Mata and Gilbert E. Garcia , jointly and severally

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Polish-American Media, Inc., Respondent, v Janusz Jozwiak et al., Defendants, and Bozena Kaminski et al., Appellants.

[814 NYS2d 713]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the defendants Bozena Kaminski, Maria Wolak, Kaya Sawczuk, *664and the Polish & Slavic Center, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated March 10, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the president of the plaintiff corporation had the implied authority to institute this action on its behalf. Absent a provision in the certificate of incorporation or bylaws or action by the board of directors prohibiting the president from instituting suit in the name and on behalf of the corporation *(see*Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 202 [a] [2]), the president must be deemed, in the discharge of his or her duties, to have the authority to do so *(see West View Hills v Lizau Realty Corp.,*6 NY2d 344, 348 [1959]; *Rothman & Schneider v Beckerman,*2 NY2d 493, 497 [1957]; *Joseph Polchinski Co. v Cemetery Floral Co.,*79 AD2d 648 [1980]; *see also Fischer v Maloney,*43 NY2d 553, 557 [1978]; *Matter of Paloma Frocks [Shamokin Sportswear Corp.],*3 NY2d 572 [1958]; *compare Sterling Indus, v Ball Bearing Pen Corp.,*298 NY 483 [1949]). On this record, the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, that the president lacked the implied authority to commence this action. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied *(see Ayotte v Gervasio,*81 NY2d 1062 [1993]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
* Judge King did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6369

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KARRIEM ALI AKRAM, a/k/a Vincent N. Johnson,

a/k/a Kareem,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-91-211, CA-97-403)

Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 30, 1999

Before WIDENER and KING,* Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Karriem Ali Akram, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is dated February 22,

1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the

docket sheet on February 23, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the

order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective

date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806

F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

3

PER CURIAM:

Karriem Ali Akram appeals from the district court’s orders

dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion for

failure to obtain authorization from this court pursuant to 28

U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999), and denying his request

for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States

v. Akram, Nos. CR-91-211; CA-97-403 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 13, 1998 &

Feb. 23, 1999).* We 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
<PAGE>


                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 Sorrento Networks Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Joe
R. Armstrong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 'SS'1350, as adopted pursuant to 'SS'906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (3)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

     (4)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated: September 15, 2003

                /s/ Joe R. Armstrong
      -----------------------------------------
Name: Joe R. Armstrong, Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Sorrento Networks Corporation and
will be retained by Sorrento Networks Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 820.62 Criteria. The criteria for granting an exemption to a DOE Nuclear Safety Requirement are determinations that the exemption: ( a ) Would be authorized by law;
( b ) Would not present an undue risk to public health and safety, the environment, or facility workers;
( c ) Would be consistent with the safe operation of a DOE nuclear facility; and
( d ) Involves special circumstances, including the following: ( 1 ) Application of the requirement in the particular circumstances conflicts with other requirements; or
( 2 ) Application of the requirement in the particular circumstances would not serve or is not necessary to achieve its underlying purpose, or would result in resource impacts which are not justified by the safety improvements; or
( 3 ) Application of the requirement would result in a situation significantly different than that contemplated when the requirement was adopted, or that is significantly different from that encountered by others similarly situated; or
( 4 ) The exemption would result in benefit to human health and safety that compensates for any detriment that may result from the grant of the exemption; or
( 5 ) Circumstances exist which would justify temporary relief from application of the requirement while taking good faith action to achieve compliance; or
( 6 ) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the requirement was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.31 Construction authorization. On review and consideration of an application and environmental impact statement submitted under this part, the Commission may authorize construction of a geologic repository operations area at the Yucca Mountain site if it determines: ( a ) *Safety.* ( 1 ) That there is reasonable assurance that the types and amounts of radioactive materials described in the application can be received and possessed in a geologic repository operations area of the design proposed without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public; and
( 2 ) That there is reasonable expectation that the materials can be disposed of without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public.
( 3 ) In arriving at these determinations, the Commission shall consider whether— ( i ) DOE has described the proposed geologic repository as specified at § 63.21;
( ii ) The site and design comply with the performance objectives and requirements contained in subpart E of this part;
( iii ) DOE's quality assurance program complies with the requirements of subpart G of this part;
( iv ) DOE's personnel training program complies with the criteria contained in subpart H of this part;
( v ) DOE's emergency plan complies with the criteria contained in subpart I of this part; and
( vi ) DOE's proposed operating procedures to protect health and to minimize danger to life or property are adequate.
( b ) *Common defense and security.* That there is reasonable assurance that the activities proposed in the application will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
( c ) *Environmental.* That, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental costs, and considering available alternatives, the action called for is the issuance of the construction authorization, with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Roderick Beham, Appellant

No. 06-14-00174-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Bowie 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 14 F 0004 005). 

Opinion delivered by Justice Carter* and 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley 

participating. *Justice Carter, Sitting by 

Assignment. Dissenting Opinion by Justice 

Moseley.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court relating to the conviction is affirmed. 

We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for a new trial on punishment.

We note that the appellant, Roderick Beham, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 18, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk