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





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 on Form 10-K/A of
Eco Energy Tech Asia, Ltd. (the “Company”) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Yuen May Cheung, President and Chief
Executive 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.





Date:
April 5, 2017


/s/
Yuen May CheungYuen May CheungPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
**
**Exhibit 31**

**Certifications**

I,Richard Simpson, 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 report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC33 (the “Exchange Actperiodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untruestatement 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(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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 onassessment 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 thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; LNR Partners, LLC; Situs Holdings, LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; Park Bridge LenderServices LLC and Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC. 

Date: March 28, 2019 

/s/ RichardSimpson                                                        

Richard Simpson 

President, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. 

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor) 

 

 
CGCMT 2015-GC33Certifications (2018) 

**
§ 1.307-1 General. ( a ) If a shareholder receives stock or stock rights as a distribution on stock previously held and under section 305 such distribution is not includible in gross income then, except as provided in section 307(b) and § 1.307-2, the basis of the stock with respect to which the distribution was made shall be allocated between the old and new stocks or rights in proportion to the fair market values of each on the date of distribution. If a shareholder receives stock or stock rights as a distribution on stock previously held and pursuant to section 305 part of the distribution is not includible in gross income, then (except as provided in section 307(b) and § 1.307-2) the basis of the stock with respect to which the distribution is made shall be allocated between ( 1 ) the old stock and
( 2 ) that part of the new stock or rights which is not includible in gross income, in proportion to the fair market values of each on the date of distribution. The date of distribution in each case shall be the date the stock or the rights are distributed to the stockholder and not the record date. The general rule will apply with respect to stock rights only if such rights are exercised or sold.
( b ) The application of paragraph (a) of this section is illustrated by the following example:
Example. A taxpayer in 1947 purchased 100 shares of common stock at $100 per share and in 1954 by reason of the ownership of such stock acquired 100 rights entitling him to subscribe to 100 additional shares of such stock at $90 a share. Immediately after the issuance of the rights, each of the shares of stock in respect of which the rights were acquired had a fair market value, ex-rights, of $110 and the rights had a fair market value of $19 each. The basis of the rights and the common stock for the purpose of determining the basis for gain or loss on a subsequent sale or exercise of the rights or a sale of the old stock is computed as follows: 100 (shares) × $100 = $10,000, cost of old stock (stock in respect of which the rights were acquired). 100 (shares) × $110 = $11,000, market value of old stock. 100 (rights) × $19 = $1,900, market value of rights. 11,000/12,900 of $10,000 = $8,527.13, cost of old stock apportioned to such stock. 1,900/12,900 of $10,000 = $1,472.87, cost of old stock apportioned to rights. If the rights are sold, the basis for determining gain or loss will be $14.7287 per right. If the rights are exercised, the basis of the new stock acquired will be the subscription price paid therefor ($90) plus the basis of the rights exercised ($14.7287 each) or $104.7287 per share. The remaining basis of the old stock for the purpose of determining gain or loss on a subsequent sale will be $85.2713 per share.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Fonix Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas A. Murdock, Chief
Executive 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/ Thomas A. Murdock
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Thomas A. Murdock
                               Chief Executive Officer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00058-CR

MICHAEL DEWAYNE DIAZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-250

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 19, 2016
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6859
JOHN M. RICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL A. LANSING, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-119-AM) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Ricks, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John M. Ricks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ricks v. Lansing , No. CA-01-119-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ISAURO MORAN-GUILLERMO, a.k.a.

Isauro Moran-Guilermo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10512

D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00833-CKJHCE-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Mark W. Bennett, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2014** 

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 

Isauro Moran-Guillermo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

FILED

JUL 10 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S. 738 (1967), Moran-Guillermo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided Moran-Guillermo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. 

No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Moran-Guillermo has waived his right to appeal his reentry of a removed

alien conviction and 46-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable

issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARK COROADO REED,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50172

D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00117-WQH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Mark Coroado Reed appeals from the $10,000 fine imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 

we affirm.

FILED

MAR 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50172

Although Reed discussed his financial condition at sentencing, he did so

solely in the context of explaining why he absconded from pretrial supervision; he

did not object at any time to the imposition of a fine. Thus, review is for plain

error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008).

The district court selected a fine at the bottom of the Guidelines range,

which was significantly lower than what was recommended in the presentence

report. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(3) (stating a fine Guideline range of $10,000 to

$100,000 for an offense level of 25). On this record, we cannot conclude that the

district court plainly erred. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761 (plain error is error that

is plain and that affects the defendant’s “substantial rights”).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 812 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 812

             To repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2023

Mr. Ogles (for himself, Mr. Perry, Mr. Biggs, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, 
 Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mr. Burlison, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mrs. Luna, 
Mr. Donalds, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Mr. Rosendale, 
 Mr. Self, Mr. Roy, Mr. Crane, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Zinke, Ms. 
Hageman, Mr. Cloud, and Mr. Buck) introduced the following bill; which 
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 
  Committees on Energy and Commerce, Agriculture, Natural Resources, 
Financial Services, Science, Space, and Technology, Transportation and 
 Infrastructure, and Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Inflation Reduction Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022.

    (a) In General.--Public Law 117-169 (commonly referred to as the 
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) is repealed.
    (b) Rescissions.--The unobligated balances of any amounts made 
available under Public Law 117-169 are rescinded.
                                 <all>
```
Larry Greene AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax 

www.airquality.org 

December 17, 2010 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

Stationary Source Division 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 449 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 449, Transfer of Gasoline into 

Vehicle Fuel Tanks, for revision to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 449 was amended by 

the District’s Board of Directors on February 26, 2009. Please also forward the information for 

this submittal to U.S. EPA. 

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

(sent via e-mail) 

Attachments: 

1. SIP Checklist Rule 449 

2. Final Version of Rule 449 

3. Underline/Strikeout Version of Rule 449 

4. Public Notice Evidence 

5. Resolution 

6. Public Comments 

7. Rule Evaluation Form 

8. Board Memo 

9. Staff Report (includes responses to comments)
**Exhibit 34.14**

 

(logo) pwc

** **

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanyingReport on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the “Company”), an indirectsubsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv),1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which theCompany has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsiblefor the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertionbased on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsof the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, anddetermining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedureswere not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that mayhave affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believethat our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company compliedwith the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for commercialmortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

February 4, 2016

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas,Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
In the matter of 

COMAIR, INC. 

Respondent 

BEFORE THE RECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

OCT 0 1 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0318 

FAA Case No. 2011S0271015 

Administrative Law Judge 

I.E. Sullivan 

WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING AND ANSWER 

Counsel for Respondent Comair, Inc. and the Federal Aviation Administration have 

reached a settlement in the above-referenced matter. Accordingly, pursuant to section 13.215 of 

the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. § 13.215), Respondent hereby 

withdraws its request for a hearing and answer filed in this matter on May 21, 2014 and August 

11, 2014, respectively. Therefore, pursuant to section 13.215, Respondent requests that this 

proceeding be dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: September 30,2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

COMAIR, INC. 

lly 2:-:~~h 1101 301

h Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of September 2014, I caused the foregoing 

Withdrawal of Request for Hearing and Answer to be served upon the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Tel: (202) 385-8227 

(original and one copy by FedEx overnight delivery) 

The Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Tel: (202) 366-2132 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

(one copy by facsimile and First Class Mail) 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Tel: ( 404) 305-5200 

Fax: (404) 305-5223 

(one copy by facsimile and First Class Mail)
3535 Peachtree Road, Suite 520-425

 Atlanta, GA 30326

 404.229.3044 July 13, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Amendment to Exemption 11979, Regulatory Docket No. FAA2015-1456, issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam:

Flight Guardian, LLC was issued Exemptio n numbered 11979 (the “Exemption”) for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television industry and still photography using the DJI Phantom 2 airframe . Flight Guardian herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow it to use additional airframes of unmanne d aircraft system (UAS) under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption.

The additional airframes are as follows:

1. DJI Inspire 1

2. DJI S900

3. DJI S1000

Attached hereto are the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for each of the above. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for the addition of other types of

unmanned aerial vehicles to the Ex emption. Flight Guardian respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely yours,

David Paul Hilton Manager, Flight Guardian

404.229.3044

cc: Mr. L. J. Johnson
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.4920 Dental electrosurgical unit and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* A dental electrosurgical unit and accessories is an AC-powered device consisting of a controlled power source and a set of cutting and coagulating electrodes. This device is intended to cut or remove soft tissue or to control bleeding during surgical procedures in the oral cavity. An electrical current passes through the tip of the electrode into the tissue and, depending upon the operating mode selected, cuts through soft tissue or coagulates the tissue.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.