alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-Q of MicroTel
International Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, 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, 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.

Dated: May 14, 2004                By: /s/ CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                        Carmine T. Oliva
                                        Chief Executive Officer (principal
                                        executive officer)


Dated: May 14, 2004                By: /s/ RANDOLPH D. FOOTE
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                        Randolph D. Foote
                                        Chief Financial Officer (principal
                                        financial officer)

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant. HARRIS HOSPITAL-METHODIST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-1442.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 23, 1984.

See also 571 F.Supp. 374.

Stafford Hutchinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charlene M. Seifert, Asst. Regional Atty., Dept, of H & HS, Dallas, Tex., for Dept, of Health and Human Services.

Robert B. Cook, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for Baylor.

Mike McKool, Jr., Charles W. Cunningham, Dallas, Tex., for Harris.

Before TATE, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (“Medicare Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395, et seq., hospitals providing health care services to Medicare patients are to be paid by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) their *392reasonable costs in rendering routine services to Medicare patients. During administrative proceedings in this case and the resulting action in district court, Baylor University Medical Center and Harris Hospital-Methodist (“hospitals”) contended that they were not paid the full amount of reimbursement to which they were entitled for routine services rendered to Medicare patients during certain accounting periods. The hospitals argued that the insufficient reimbursements resulted from the Secretary’s inclusion of labor and delivery room patients in the inpatient census, even though those patients had not yet received routine care. *See*§ 2345, Secretary’s Provider Reimbursement Manual. Because the inpatient census is the very basis of the average per diem cost figures used to calculate total reimbursements, the hospitals allege that the Secretary’s practice distorts average costs to the detriment of non-Medicare patients.

The district court agreed with the hospitals’ position and held that labor and delivery room patients are not includable in the midnight census used to compute the average cost of routine services for purposes of Medicare reimbursement. *Baylor University Medical Center v. Schweiker,*563 F.Supp. 1081 (N.D.Tex.1983). We affirm on the basis of the reasons adequately set forth in the district court’s opinion and by the Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Ninth Circuit in *St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center v. Schweiker,*718 F.2d 459 (D.C.Cir.1983) and *International Philanthropic Hospital Foundation v. Heckler,*724 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir.1984). Our affirmance, however, is of this case only and should not be construed to invalidate the practice of including labor and delivery room patients in the inpatient census in all situations. Hospital practices vary, and the Secretary is free to produce evidence showing that the artificially low reimbursement alleged to result from including labor and delivery room patients in the census is offset by other accounting factors, including those recognized in *St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center*and *International Philanthropic Hospital Foundation.*

AFFIRMED.
Real Estate Term Note



Exhibit 10.78 
 
REAL ESTATE TERM NOTE 
 

	 $1,050,000
	  	 	  	 February 3, 2003


 
For
value received, the undersigned, RF MONOLITHICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay on the Termination Date under the Credit Agreement (defined below), to the order of WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CREDIT, INC., a
Minnesota corporation (the “Lender”), at its main office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at any other place designated at any time by the holder hereof, in lawful money of the United States of America and in immediately available funds, the
principal sum of One Million Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($1,050,000) together with interest on the principal amount hereunder remaining unpaid from time to time, computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a 360-day year,
from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid at the rate from time to time in effect under the Amended and Restated Credit and Security Agreement of even date herewith (as the same may hereafter be amended, supplemented or restated from time
to time, the “Credit Agreement”) by and between the Lender and the Borrower. The principal hereof and interest accruing thereon shall be due and payable as provided in the Credit Agreement. This Note may be prepaid only in accordance with
the Credit Agreement. 
 
This Note is issued
pursuant, and is subject, to the Credit Agreement, which provides, among other things, for acceleration hereof. This Note is the Real Estate Term Note referred to in the Credit Agreement. This Note is secured, among other things, pursuant to the
Credit Agreement and the Security Documents as therein defined, and may now or hereafter be secured by one or more other security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments or other instruments or agreements. 
 
The Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection,
including attorneys’ fees and legal expenses in the event this Note is not paid when due, whether or not legal proceedings are commenced. 
 
Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of acceleration, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of dishonor, protest and all other
notices of any kind are expressly waived. 
 

	 RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

	
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David M. Kirk


	 	 	 David M. Kirk
 President
(logo) LNR

Partners, LLC

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1. A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2015 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “Reporting Period”), and of the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liability company

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw 

President

 

Dated: February 23, 2016

 

1601 Washington Avenue ∙ Suite 700 ∙ Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 ∙ Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

 

Schedule I

 

MSBAM 2015-C23

Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C23, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C23

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1221 Avenue of the Americas 

New York NY 10020

James Y. Lee

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 Broadway

New York NY 10036 

Stephen Holmes

 

Pentalpha Surveillance LLC 

375 N. French Road, Suite 100

Amherst NY 14228

Don Simon

 

Pentalpha Surveillance LLC 

Bass, Berry and Sims PLC

150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800

Nashville TN 37201 

Jay H. Knight

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

9062 Old Annapolis Road 

Columbia MD 21045 

Group Notices

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

9062 Old Annapolis Road 

MAC: R1204-010

Columbia MD 21045 

Irene Kaplanis

 

Wilmington Trust, National Association 

1100 North Market Street

Wilimington DE 19890 

Dorri Costello

 

Wilmington Trust, National Association 

1100 North Market Street

Wilmington DE 19890 

Group
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

A.A.R., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-372

[December 15, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Lisa S. Small, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CJ-001816-

XXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Logan T. Mohs, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8082 

To provide that certain actions by the Federal Communications Commission 

shall have no force or effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2024 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide that certain actions by the Federal 

Communications Commission shall have no force or effect. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Local Com5 munities Input in Broadband Development Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2 PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF STATE AND LOCAL 

7 GOVERNMENTS. 

8 Actions by the Federal Communications Commission 

9 in ‘‘Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband De10 ployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure InvestVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:19 May 07, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8082.IH H8082

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8082 IH

1 ment’’ (83 Fed. Reg. 51867) and the Federal Communica2 tions Commission’s Declaratory Ruling in ‘‘Third Report 

3 and Order and Declaratory Ruling’’ (FCC 18–111) shall 

4 have no force or effect. 

Æ 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 145 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37993-37994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18150]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13391-000]


Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund I, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

July 23, 2009.
    On March 6, 2009, and supplemented on May 29, 2009, and June 26, 
2009,

[[Page 37994]]

Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund I, LLC filed an application for a three-
year preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power 
Act (FPA), to study the feasibility of the proposed Mighty Mouse 
Project. The Mighty Mouse Project would be located on the Mississippi 
River at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lock and Dam No. 5a in 
Fountain City, Winona County, Minnesota, and in Buffalo County, 
Wisconsin.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new lock door placed 
in an auxiliary lock that would hold seven new turbine generating units 
with a total capacity of 4,963 kW; (2) new removable panels to control 
flow through the turbine units; and (3) appurtenant facilities. Project 
power would be transmitted through a 1,000-foot-long, 36.7-kV 
transmission line. The estimated annual generation is 41,330 megawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne F. Krouse, Hydro\\ Friends Fund I, 
LLC, 5090 Richmond Avenue, Suite 390, Houston, TX 77056; 877-556-6566, 
ext. 709.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy, (202) 502-8755.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13391) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18150 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 19, 2016

No. 04-16-00387-CR

Veronica ALEGRIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR5021A

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

Counsel has informed the appellant of her right to file her own brief and provided appellant with 

a form motion for requesting the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no 

pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The 

State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief unless the appellant files a pro 

se brief.

If the appellant desires to request the appellate record, she must file the motion requesting 

the record within ten days from the date of this order. If the appellant desires to file a pro se 

brief, she must do so within thirty days from the date of this order. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 

177 n.1. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than 

thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. It is further ORDERED 

that the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending 

further order of the court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3690 Tooth shade resin material. ( a ) *Identification.* Tooth shade resin material is a device composed of materials such as bisphenol-A glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) intended to restore carious lesions or structural defects in teeth.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



I, Pierric Senay, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2015-C
(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



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



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



4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and



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



In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably
relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Citibank, N.A.



|Date: March 18, 2016 |     |                                                              
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     |                                                              
|                     | By: | /s/ Pierric Senay                                            
|                     |     | Name: Pierric Senay                                          
|                     |     | Title:  President and Secretary                              
|                     |     | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
NUREG/BR-0519

May 2014

How does the NRC support 

the United States’ 

nonproliferation policy?

The NRC supports the 

United States government’s 

overall implementation 

of nonproliferation policy 

by implementing a robust 

regulatory regime that 

ensures that NRC-licensed 

facilities are constructed and 

operated safely and securely. 

The NRC’s comprehensive 

licensing and oversight 

framework ensures that 

access to NRC-licensed 

enrichment or reprocessing 

facilities and technology is 

properly controlled through 

appropriate physical 

protection, personnel security, 

and information protection 

requirements. 

The NRC ensures that 

its licensing framework 

and oversight activities 

are aligned with national 

nonproliferation policies 

and objectives through its 

ongoing interaction with 

other Federal agencies 

having primary responsibility 

for implementing the U.S. 

nonproliferation policy.

U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) 

Nonproliferation 

Considerations 

in the Licensing 

of Enrichment 

and Reprocessing 

Facilities 
The NRC addresses nuclear nonproliferation concerns through:

Ongoing Oversight

•	 The NRC’s robust oversight program ensures that enrichment and

reprocessing facilities comply with NRC requirements for the protection

of sensitive and classified information, technologies, equipment, and

radioactive material.

•	 The NRC routinely inspects enrichment facilities to verify that these

facilities are not modified to produce material that could be used in

nuclear weapons.

Active Interagency 

Cooperation

•	 The NRC actively collaborates

with Federal agencies within

the Executive Branch that

have primary responsibility

for implementing U.S.

nonproliferation policy. 

•	 The NRC provides technical

expertise to these agencies

in carrying out their

responsibilities.

•	 The NRC ensures that its

licensing activities are aligned

with U.S. nonproliferation

goals and policies.

Regulatory Requirements 

•	 The NRC regulations for physical

security, material control and

accounting, information security,

and export/import licensing

focus on preventing the theft

or diversion of radioactive

materials and sensitive/classified

technologies, materials, and

equipment, including those

related to enrichment and

reprocessing facilities.

The NRC’s comprehensive regulatory framework – which includes regulatory requirements and review, oversight, 

and interagency cooperation – adequately assesses proliferation risks and concerns associated with the licensing 

of an enrichment or reprocessing facility in the United States. 

Ongoing

Oversight

Regulatory

Requirements

Active

Interagency

Cooperation