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

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Velocity Asset Management Inc. for the six months ended June 30, 2006,
I, John C. Kleinert, Chief Executive Officer of Velocity Asset Management, Inc.
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the six
months ended June 30, 2006, 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 such amended Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Velocity
Asset Management, Inc.



                                       /s/ JOHN C. KLEINERT
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       John C. Kleinert
                                       Chief Executive Officer


August __, 2006


                                       32
#### § 200.417 Interagency service.

The cost of services provided by one agency to another within the governmental unit may include allowable direct costs of the service plus a pro-rated share of indirect costs. A standard indirect cost allowance equal to ten percent of the direct salary and wage cost of providing the service (excluding overtime, shift premiums, and fringe benefits) may be used in lieu of determining the actual indirect costs of the service. These services do not include centralized services included in central service cost allocation plans as described in Appendix V to Part 200.

[85 FR 49564, Aug. 13, 2020]
#### § 1314.05 Requirements regarding packaging of nonliquid forms.

A regulated seller or mail order distributor may not sell a scheduled listed chemical product in nonliquid form (including gel caps) unless the product is packaged either in blister packs, with each blister containing no more than two dosage units or, if blister packs are technically infeasible, in unit dose packets or pouches.
NOTE

SUBJECT Summary of August 21, 2012, meeting with DuPont 

TO EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0258

FROM Katherine Sleasman

DuPont met with EPA to discuss the recycling of carpet fibers. They provided a 

description of the process and asked EPA if this type of recycling would be considered as a 

significant new use under the proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) definition of 

processing. The SNUR requires companies to report 90 days in advance of all new uses of longchain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic (LCPFAC) chemicals as part of carpets or to treat carpets, 

including the import of new carpet containing LCPFACs. EPA responded by stating that we will 

consider all comments and that we believe processing including recycling is excluded from the 

SNUR and that it is not to be considered a significant new use. DuPont also asked about the 

timing for the second Significant New Use Rule related to chemicals in the 2010/15 PFOA 

Stewardship. EPA said we plan to look at the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting rule (CDR) data to 

inform the second SNUR. A copy of the attendance list and meeting materials are attached to this 

note.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Hubert Heuvel, Appellant.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Saratoga County, convicting the appellant of the crime of manslaughter, first degree, and assault, first degree, upon his plea of guilty. After appellant had pleaded guilty to the crimes he stands convicted of and was sentenced therefor, he succeeded in obtaining a writ of habeas corpus vacating the sentences imposed and ordering a resentencing at which compliance with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was directed. While awaiting resentencing, the appellant made a motion in arrest of judgment for an order permitting the withdrawal of his plea of guilty to the two crimes and the reinstate-: ment of pleas of not guilty. After -a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion' and resentenced appellant to the same sentences originally imposed. Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. We cannot agree. It should be first noted that a motion in arrest of judgment generally is -limited to the grounds that the court has no jursidiction over -the subject matter of the indictment or that the facts stated do not constitute a crime (Code Crim. Pro., § 467; *People*v. *Swerdlow,*11 N Y 2d 140; *People*v. *Perrin,*170 App. Div. 375) which is clearly *994not the case here. Moreover, while a court, of course, has inherent power to arrest judgment to avoid the results of a clear mistake or miscarriage of justice, there is here no evidence of mistake or miscarriage of justice to invoke the use of this power. Furthermore, there is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty pleas and substitute pleas of not guilty. On the instant record the trial court could clearly find that there was no fraud or coercion on the part of the District Attorney or any other basis upon which the motion involved should have been granted *(People*v. *Etheridge,*29 A D 2d 679). Judgment affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.; Aulisi, J., not voting.
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 88 FR 45064, July 14, 2023.

§ 12.20 Initiation of a hearing involving the issuance, amendment, or revocation of a regulation. ( a ) A proceeding under section 409(f), 502(n), 512(n)(5), 701(e), or 721(d) of the act or section 4 or 5 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act may be initiated— ( 1 ) By the Commissioner on the Commissioner's own initiative, e.g., as provided in § 170.15 for food additives; or
( 2 ) By a petition— ( i ) In the form specified elsewhere in this chapter, e.g., the form for a color additive petition in § 71.1; or
( ii ) If no form is specified, by a petition under § 10.30.
( b ) If the Commissioner receives a petition under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Commissioner will— ( 1 ) If it involves any matter subject to section 701(e) of the act or section 4 or 5 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and meets the requirements for filing, follow the provisions of § 10.40 (b) through (f);
( 2 ) If it involves a color additive or food additive, and meets the requirements for filing in §§ 71.1 and 71.2, or in §§ 171.1, 171.6, 171.7, and 171.100, publish a notice of filing of the petition within 30 days after the petition is filed instead of a notice of proposed rulemaking.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) The notice promulgating the regulation will describe how to submit objections and requests for hearing.
( e ) On or before the 30th day after the date of publication of a final regulation, or of a notice withdrawing a proposal initiated by a petition under § 10.25(a), a person may submit to the Commissioner written objections and a request for a hearing. The 30-day period may not be extended except that additional information supporting an objection may be received after 30 days upon a showing of inadvertent omission and hardship, and if review of the objection and request for hearing will not thereby be impeded. If, after a final color additive regulation is published, a petition or proposal relating to the regulation is referred to an advisory committee in accordance with section 721(b)(5)(C) of the act, objections and requests for a hearing may be submitted on or before the 30th day after the date on which the order confirming or modifying the Commissioner's previous order is published.
[44 FR 22339, Apr. 13, 1979, as amended at 64 FR 399, Jan. 5, 1999]
#### § 3185.137 Who in the IMLS may grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction?

The IMLS Director has the authority to grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction, as provided in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.135.
§ 1138.405 Content of SUB Article IV. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must require recipients to include pertinent requirements concerning financial and program management in each subaward they make.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must use the wording appendix D to this part provides for SUB Article IV.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 713 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 713

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         March 9, 2006.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2829) to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act. 
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined 
to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the 
bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except 
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
•Many lamprey by-passed the adult ladder•Only 26 captured and 16  PIT tagged •Only 2 recaptured•Need another method for capture

•66 Pacific and 42 western brook lamprey nests (24 nests unidentifiable)•April 6 - July 6

*not all nests are on this map

•228 points sampled •403 ammocoetes collected•10 transformers collected•Only 1 western brook ID’d•Lamprey Ω30 mm not included in depletion or analyses•30% of all points sampled had at least 1 lamprey (average density for these points was 6 lamprey/m2)•Maximum density was 35 lamprey/m2

•116 macropthalmia•416 ammocoetes

Mouth

Approach

Adults

Larvae

Outmigrants

Stratified Point Sampling Technique

Diagram of Sample Reach

Transect 1

Transect 6

Transect 5

Transect 4

Transect 3

Transect 2

Water F

low

10 m

East Fork Lewis River Flow and Cedar Creek Outmigrant Abundance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

3/15/00 4/28/00 6/12/00 7/28/00 9/11/00 10/26/00 12/10/00

Num

ber

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Flo

w (c

fs)

Outmigrants

Flow

Cedar Creek Outmigrant Movement(Rotary Screw Trap)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

3/15/00 5/4/00 6/23/00 8/12/00 10/1/00 11/20/00

Num

ber

Ammocoete

Macropthalmia

Grist Mill falls at Cedar Creek with adult ladder on right

Pacific lamprey nest with female

Electrofishing a sample point

Electrofishing crew at a sample reach on Cedar Creek 

#

##

#

#

#

# #

# #

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

N

1 0 1

Kilometers

Cedar Creek

Legend

Number of lamprey per sample reach

# 1 - 2# 3 - 11# 12 - 23# 24 - 36# 37 - 57

=sample point

$

$ $$

$$

$

$

$

$$$$$$$$$$$ $

$

#

##

##

#

##

#

Cedar Creek

Cedar Creek

$ Pacific lamprey nest# Western brook lamprey nest

Legend

0 1 2 Kilometers

N
#### Major et al. *v.*Kaplan et al.

[No. 17,066.

Piled April 30, 1943.

Rehearing denied May 22, 1943. Transfer denied June 16, 1943.]

*Arnold, Degnan, Goheen & Zimmerman,*of South Bend, for appellants.

*487*Morris Feldman,*of South Bend, and *Reed & Reed,.*of Knox, for appellees.

Flanagan, P. J. —

On September 23, 1942, this appeal was submitted under rule 2-14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. On October 22, 1942, appellants’ brief was filed. On November 18, 1942, appellees’ brief was filed in which appellees asked that the judgment be affirmed because of failure of appellants to comply with the rules of this court in preparing their brief. On December 2, 1942, appellants filed their motion to amend their briefs by inserting by interlineation the following statement: “II, III & -IV See Appendix to Appellants’ Reply Brief.”

On December 29, 1942, appellees filed their motion to dismiss the appeal based principally upon the contention that appellants had failed to comply with the-rules of this court in preparing their brief. On February 2, 1943, this court granted appellants’ motion to amend its brief and reserved ruling on the motion to-dismiss. Appellants’ brief has been amended in compliance with their motion. Their reply brief was filed on December 2, 1942.

Appellants’ brief as originally filed failed to comply with rule 2-17 of thib court in that, (1) from page. 2 to 16 under a heading “Brief History of the Case,” it contained an argumentative statement of facts from appellants’ viewpoint; and (2) it omitted a statement as to what the issues were, how; the issues were decided and what the judgment or decree was, and the errors relied upon for reversal.

After the brief was amended the argumentative statement of facts under the heading “Brief History of the Case,” remained unchanged. It should be noted that the brief contains in addition an argument under the proper heading and in the *488proper place. The clear purpose of rule 2-17 is to have provided an unbiased statement of the facts without argument and a succinct statement of the applicable legal proposition to support appellants’ contentions, also without elaboration or argument. The rule clearly provides that argument must be confined to that part of the brief under the heading “Argument.”

After the brief was amended it still failed to contain a statement as to what the issues were, how the issues were decided and what the judgment or decree was, and the errors relied upon for reversal. It merely contained the statement, “II, III & IV See Appendix to Appellants’ Reply Brief.” That is not compliance with the rule.

Nor can we agree with appellants’ contention that appellees in their answer brief have supplied the deficiencies of appellants’ original brief.

No question having been presented judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 48 N. E. (2d) 82.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNCFinancial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland LoanServices, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland”or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for alltransactions serviced on the *Enterprise!* Loan Management System (the“Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C),1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicingactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management isresponsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selectedasset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing ofselected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Midland complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
§ 1312.46 Time and place of hearing. ( a ) If any applicant for an import, export, or transshipment permit requests a hearing on the issuance or denial of his application, the Administrator shall hold such hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be given to the applicant of the time and place at least 30 days prior to the hearing, unless the applicant waives such notice and requests the hearing be held at an earlier time, in which case the Administrator shall fix a date for such hearing as early as reasonably possible.
( b ) The hearing will commence at the place and time designated in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section but thereafter it may be moved to a different place and may be continued from day to day or recessed to a later day without notice other than announcement thereof by the presiding officer at the hearing.
[37 FR 15924, Aug. 8, 1972. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973]
###### Editorial Note on Part 112

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 112.41 What requirements apply to the quality of my agricultural water?

All agricultural water must be safe and of adequate sanitary quality for its intended use.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-Mos              
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-28-1997
<CASH>                                         89,623
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,546,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (98,178)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,530,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               75,589
<PP&E>                                         1,545,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,248,064)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,441,425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,318,649
<BONDS>                                        406,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       113,382
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,602,982
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,441,425
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,249,095
<CGS>                                          2,427,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,835,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,026,157)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,026,157)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.05)
        


</TABLE>
§ 11.200 Electronic signature components and controls. ( a ) Electronic signatures that are not based upon biometrics shall: ( 1 ) Employ at least two distinct identification components such as an identification code and password. ( i ) When an individual executes a series of signings during a single, continuous period of controlled system access, the first signing shall be executed using all electronic signature components; subsequent signings shall be executed using at least one electronic signature component that is only executable by, and designed to be used only by, the individual.
( ii ) When an individual executes one or more signings not performed during a single, continuous period of controlled system access, each signing shall be executed using all of the electronic signature components.
( 2 ) Be used only by their genuine owners; and
( 3 ) Be administered and executed to ensure that attempted use of an individual's electronic signature by anyone other than its genuine owner requires collaboration of two or more individuals.
( b ) Electronic signatures based upon biometrics shall be designed to ensure that they cannot be used by anyone other than their genuine owners.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00414

- CV

IN RE ORDER OF FOREC LOSURE CONCERNING 37 13 MARTZ LANE, M c ALLEN, TX 78504
On Appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 5555

- 13

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF AP PEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified be low for observance. October 30, 2014