alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 573.320 Diammonium phosphate. The food additive diammonium phosphate may be safely used in ruminant feed in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The food additive is the product resulting from the neutralization of feeding-phosphoric-acid or defluorinated wet-process phosphoric acid with anhydrous ammonia. It contains not less than 106.25 percent equivalent crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25) and 20 percent phosphorus. It contains not more than the following: 1 part fluorine to 100 parts phosphorus. 75 parts per million or arsenic (as As). 30 parts per million of heavy metals, as lead (Pb).
( b ) It is used in ruminant feeds as a source of phosphorus and nitrogen in an amount that supplies not more than 2 percent of equivalent crude protein in the total daily ration.
( c ) To assure safe use of the additive, the label and labeling of the additive and that of any feed additive supplement, feed additive concentrate, feed additive premix, or complete feed prepared therefrom shall contain, in addition to other information required by the act, the following: ( 1 ) The name of the additive.
( 2 ) The maximum percentage of equivalent crude protein from the nonprotein nitrogen.
( 3 ) If the feed additive premix, feed additive concentrate, or feed additive supplement contains more than 2 percent equivalent crude protein from diammonium phosphate, adequate directions for use and a prominent statement, “Warning—This feed should be used only in accordance with directions furnished on the label.”
1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-2071

___________ Antoine Echols, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 6, 1996 Filed: December 12, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Antoine Echols appeals the district court's 1dismissal of his legal malpractice claim against his federal public defender pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80. We affirm.
A party pursuing a tort claim under the FTCA must present the claim in writing to the appropriate administrative agency within two years of the claim's accrual. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The failure to comply with the presentment requirement bars the filing of the action in district court. Id. § 2675(a). Although Echols, as a pro se litigant, is entitled to have his complaint construed liberally, see Selland v. United States , 966 F.2d 346, 347 n.2 (8th-2- Cir. 1992) (per curiam), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 923 (1993), we note that Echols not only concedes that he did not file an administrative claim, but also argues on appeal that exhaustion is not necessary. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction because Echols did not file an administrative claim. See Farmers State Sav. Bank v. Farmers Home Admin. , 866 F.2d 276, 277 (8th Cir. 1989) (exhaustion is jurisdictional prerequisite). As to the sua sponte nature of the district court's dismissal, the failure to first provide Echols with formal notice was not reversible error based on Echols's argument on appeal that he did not file a claim and that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not necessary. See Smith v. Boyd , 945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991) (failure to give prior notice and opportunity to respond not reversible error when patently obvious plaintiff could not prevail on facts alleged in complaint).
Accordingly, we hold that the district court's dismissal of the complaint was correct, but that it should have been for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g. , Melo v. United States , 505 F.2d 1026, 1030 (8th Cir. 1974) (amending dismissal order to clarify dismissal was for want of jurisdiction); see also United States v. Abadia , 949 F.2d 956, 958 n.12 (8th Cir. 1991) (court may affirm on any ground supported by the record), cert. denied , 503 U.S. 949 (1992). A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 23 , 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00838

- CR

GEORGIA LOVETT , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 5

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008856

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of deadly conduct, and sentenced to one year in the county jail, probated for 15 months.
Appellant was represented at trial by retained counsel. The trial court allowed trial counsel to withdraw following trial. Appellant’s brief was originally
due March 9, 2016 , but no brief was filed. This court abated the appeal and
directed the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure2

to file a brief pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b). The trial court held the hearing, and appellant confirmed to the court that she wished to represent herself on appeal . At t he hearing, appellant advised the court that s he would file an appellate brief on or before April 29, 2016 . The trial court found appellant is not indigent, and that s he desires to represent herself on appeal.

On June 16, 2016
, no brief had been filed, and this court ordered appellant to file a brief on or before July 13, 2016 . The court explained that if appellant did not file a brief as ordered, the court would consider the appeal without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). N o brief was filed.

On the basis of th e trial court’s findings, this court has considered the appeal
without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b). We find no fundamental error.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Christopher

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
EXHIBIT 99.1

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

      I, Robert E. Busch, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Electric and
Gas Company (the "Company"),  to the best of my knowledge,  certify that (i) the
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended September 30,
2002 (the "Periodic  Report") fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the  information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                          /s/ Robert E. Busch
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Robert E. Busch
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          November 1, 2002
# C_2016314EN.01001802.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alesa v Commission

(Case T-99/14) (1)

1

((Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of technical assistance to the Chinese authorities for the purposes of the project ‘Sustainable urbanisation project - Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK)’ - Negotiated procedure - Article 266(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 - Transparency - Equal treatment - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 314/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alesa Srl (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: N. Giampaolo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, an application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission decision, published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2013/S 234 405244), to award the public contract DCI-ASIA/2013/329-453, relating to the supply of technical assistance to the project ‘Sustainable urbanisation project — Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK)’ to a tenderer other than the applicant, secondly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for damage which the applicant allegedly suffered and, thirdly, an application based on Article 277 TFEU and requesting the General Court to assess ‘the lawfulness/unlawfulness and applicability/inapplicability’ of Article 266 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1), and of point 2.4.13 of the Practical Guide to contract procedures for European Union external actions.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alesa Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alesa Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

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 the Annual Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Brian R. Schaefgen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Brian R. Schaefgen  |  |  |  | 
|Brian R. Schaefgen      |  |  |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  | 
|March 9, 2006           |  |  |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 99.6

 

 

Report of Management onCompliance

 

 

# **January 23, 2004**

#  

 

Ernst & Young LLP220 South Sixth StreetSuite 1400Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

 

We, as members of management of Retailers National Bank, as servicer (“RNB”),are responsible for complying with the administration and servicingrequirements of Article III, Article IV and Section 8.8 of the Amended andRestated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 28, 2000 (as amended, the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”)and the applicable provisions of the Series 1998-1 Supplement, dated as ofAugust 12, 1998, the Series 2001-1 Supplement, dated as of August 22, 2001, andthe Series 2002-1 Supplement, dated as of July 2, 2002 (together, the “Supplements”) to the Target Credit Card Master Trust,insofar as such articles, section and provisions relate to accountingmatters.  We also are responsible forestablishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance withthe administration and servicing requirements of Article III, Article IV andSection 8.8 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the applicableprovisions of the Supplements, insofar as such articles, section and provisionsrelate to accounting matters.  We haveperformed an evaluation of RNB’s compliance with the requirements of theadministration and servicing requirements of Article III, Article IV andSection 8.8 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the applicableprovisions of the Supplements, insofar as such articles, section and provisionsrelate to accounting matters, as of January 3, 2004 and for the fiscal yearthen ended.  Based on this evaluation, weassert that for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2004, RNB complied, in allmaterial respects, with the administration and servicing requirements of ArticleIII, Article IV and Section 8.8 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and theapplicable provisions of the Supplements, insofar as such articles, section andprovisions relate to accounting matters.

 

 
|   | Very  truly yours,                 |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   |                               |
|   |                               |
|   | /s/  Terrence J. Scully            |   |
|   | Terrence  J. Scully                |
|   | President, Retailers National Bank |
Exhibit 99.1

      Press Release:

Zarlink CFO to Pursue Other Business Opportunities

OTTAWA,  CANADA,  February 17, 2003 - Zarlink Semiconductor  (NYSE/TSX:ZL) today
announced that Jean-Jacques Carrier,  Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief
Financial  Officer,  will be  leaving  the  company  by the end of the summer to
pursue other business opportunities. Mr. Carrier will remain in his current role
until his replacement is hired, and in a transitional role for a reasonable time
thereafter.

      "The  company and the Board thank Mr.  Carrier for his almost ten years of
dedicated service. We wish him the very best in his future business  endeavors,"
said Dr. Henry Simon, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Zarlink Semiconductor.

About Zarlink Semiconductor

      Zarlink   employs  its  formidable   analog,   digital  and   mixed-signal
capabilities  to offer the most  compelling  products  for wired,  wireless  and
optical connectivity markets and ultra low-power medical applications.  For more
information, visit www.zarlink.com.

      Certain  statements  in  this  press  release  constitute  forward-looking
statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.  Such   forward-looking   statements  involve  known  and  unknown  risks,
uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance
or  achievements  of the  Company  to be  materially  different  from any future
results,   performance,   or   achievements   expressed   or   implied  by  such
forward-looking  statements.  Such risks, uncertainties and assumptions include,
among  others,  the risks  discussed in documents  filed by the Company with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission.  Investors are  encouraged to consider the
risks detailed in those filings.

Zarlink,  ZL,  and the  Zarlink  Semiconductor  logo are  trademarks  of Zarlink
Semiconductor Inc.

For further information:
Jacques Guerette                                Mike McGinn
Corporate Communications                        Investor Relations
613 270-7110                                    613 270-7210
jacques.guerette@zarlink.com                    mike.mcginn@zarlink.com
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3378EM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Ira Anthony Johnson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: April 3, 1997

 Filed: April 9, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Ira Anthony Johnson appeals his weapons-related convictions

and guidelines sentence. Johnson’s challenge to the

constitutionality of the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) weapons charges

based on Lopez v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), is

foreclosed by our recent decisions. See United States v. Bates, 77

F.3d 1101, 1103-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 215 (1996);

United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 1995) (per

curiam), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1364 (1996). Also, the district

court correctly concluded that in the absence of a motion by the

Government for a downward departure it could not sentence Johnson

to less than the minimum fifteen-year term mandated by 18 U.S.C. §

924(e)(1). See United States v. Rudolph, 970 F.2d 467, 470 (8th

Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1069 (1993). We thus affirm

Johnson’s convictions and sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certifications**
I, Dennis R. Wolters, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Day International Group, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 24, 2005 By: /s/ Dennis R Wolters      Dennis R. Wolters  President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: TERMINATION OF PARENTAL

RIGHTS TO A.P.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.L.L., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 122 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: TERMINATION OF PARENTAL

RIGHTS TO M.S.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.L.L., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 123 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: TERMINATION OF PARENTAL

RIGHTS TO K.P.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.L.L., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 124 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of April, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-C30 (the"Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., asNCB Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee,Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, asServicing Function Participant, Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator on and after November 1, 2021, and Computershare TrustCompany, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCustodian on and after November 1, 2021.

 

 

 

Dated:March 10,2022

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

Anthony Sfarra

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)