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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Able
Laboratories, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company certify, to the best knowledge and belief of each signatory,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ Dhananjay G. Wadekar
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Dhananjay G. Wadekar
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)


                                               /s/ Robert Weinstein
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Robert Weinstein
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               (Principal Financial Officer)

Date: November 14, 2003
(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)

Special Term 1900.

#### HENRY BURKHOLD, Assignee, v. C. C. BRAGG.

In a suit by a sub-contractor against the owner for balance due, the fact that the owner has a claim against the principal contractor for breach of contract is not sufficient ground for the making of the principal contractor a party by the defendant owner, where the principal contractor claims no interest antagonistic to that of the sub-contractor.

Dempsey, J:

In this case the plaintiff, as assignee of Martin Byrnes, filed his petition seeking to recover the balance due on a contract for work done by Byrnes, as subcontractor, under Kirchner, who was original contractor with defendant, and also to foreclose a mechanic’s lien taken to secure the balance due on said contract.

The defendant first answers setting up defenses in bar of plaintiff’s claim founded on derelictions of either said Byrnes or Kirchner. Defendant then counterclaims against said Kirchner on the original contract, prays for an accounting against Kirchner, and causes a summons to be issued against him on the cross-petition, thus, in effect, and without leave of *275the court making Kirchner a party defendant to this action.

Burch *&*Johnson, for plaintiff.

D. C. Black for Bragg; E. B. Gregg for Kirchiner.

A motion is interposed by plaintiff to strike out specific portions of the prayer in so far as they pray relief against Kirchner; and a second motion by Kirchner to have himself dismissed from the suit.

I am unable to see how, even on the theory of accounting, Kirchner is a necessary or proper party to this action. If he were necessary to the determination of the issues between the plaintiff and defendant, it would be proper to let-him remain in. The defendant claims no

affirmative relief against plaintiff or Byrnes, in which Kirchner would be interested, and as to wl^ich he then would be a proper party, but because Byrnes’ rights are derivative from Kirchner, and he, defendant, has a claim against Kirchner for alleged breach of the orisinal contract, he claims the right to have Byrnes or his assignee participate in his contest with Kirchner. Byrnes’ rights under his sub-contract can rise no higher than Kirchner’s rights against Bragg, but that is all matter of pure defense against Byrnes and assignee in bar of their action. If Kirchner were claiming any part of the sum claimed by Byrnes’ assignee, then he would properly be a party; but the converse is the case; it is Bragg who denies any inldebtedness on the original contract, and over and above that seeks to recover from Kirchner for a violation of it; he doesn’t seek to recover anything from Byrnes or his assignee. In whatever respect we view it, I am unable to see how in the controversy between plaintiff and Bragg, Kirchner when he is claiming no interest antagonistic to Bvrnes or assignee, and when every defense Bragg has against Kirchner can be set up in this case against Byrnes’ claim, Kirchner and any claims Bragg may have against him can be injected •into this case. It is my judgment that both motions ought to be granted, and it is so ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         512,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,057,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                   301,336
<INVENTORY>                                    122,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,779,803
<PP&E>                                       6,534,230
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,880,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,254,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,788,138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,949
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,012
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,009,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,254,725
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,750,811
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,575,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               214,559
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                36,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             448,439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,569)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### Hydrogeologic factors in the selection of shallow land burial sites for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste

By: John N. Fischer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir973

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 1026.670 Summons or subpoena of foreign bank records; termination of correspondent relationship. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.670 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
Date:

Subject:

From:

To:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 5

AIR AND RADIATION DIVISION

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:

A-I8J

June 22, 2010

Evaluation of PM2.5 Air Quality at Three Sites in

the Louisville Area

Melissa M. Barnhart, Environmental Scientist / 1

Control Strategies Section lI~

Jay Bortzer, Acting Section Chief

Control Strategies Section

EPA is using 2007 to 2009 air quality data to evaluate

whether the Louisville area is attaining the annual PM2.5

standard. This memorandum addresses one element of that

evaluation: evaluating air quality at three sites, known as

Barret Avenue, Indiana Armory, and Cannons Lane, that did not

have three years of complete data available during that period.

The first of these three sites, Barret Avenue, site number

21-111-0048, discontinued operation after the fourth quarter of

2008. Letters from Region 4 to Louisville Metro Air Pollution

Control District, dated November 4, 2008, and January 28, 2009,

approved the relocation of this monitor in 2009 (due to safety

reasons) and stated that Kentucky's monitoring network satisfies

the applicable monitoring network requirements for PM2.5. For the

----- -----:Jof the NAAQS.

The other two monitors in the Louisville area that did not

collect complete data for 2007 to 2009 began sampling well after

the beginning of this period. The Indiana Armory site, site

number 18-019-0008, was not operational until the third quarter

of 2008. For this site, the average of concentrations in the

second half of 2008 was 13.4 pg/m3 , and the annual average of

concentrations in 2009 was 10.8 pg/m3 • Another site, Cannons

Lane, site number 21-111-0067, was not operational until 2009.

EPA approved the establishment of the Cannons Lane site in its

January 28, 2009, letter approving the request to discontinue the

Barret Avenue site. The average of concentrations in 2009 at the
- 2 -

Cannons Lane site was 11.7 pg/m3 • These average concentrations

are all consistent with attainment of the NAAQS.

The Indiana Armory and Cannons Lane monitors had not begun

operation and thus had collected no data during a significant

portion of the 2007 to 2009 period. Thus, neither of these

monitors has collected complete data for any 3-year period to

date. Determinations of attainment are based on three years of

complete, quality-assured data. Nevertheless, any such

assessment should consider additional quality-assured data, to

the extent that quality-assured data exist. The data available

at these two sites are consistent with the determination that air

quality at these locations is attaining the annual PM2 . 5 standard.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 25, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

131247 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

RICK PETERSEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 131247 

v COA: 266177 

WCAC: 03-000260 

MAGNA CORPORATION and MIDWEST 

EMPLOYERS CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

and 

KOLEASECO and THE ACCIDENT FUND 

COMPANY, MAGNA CORPORATION and TIG 

INSURANCE COMPANY, BCN 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES and TIG 

INSURANCE COMPANY, KOLEASECO and 

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, BCN 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,SERTA 

RESTOKRAFT MATTRESS COMPANY and 

HARLEYSVILLE LAKE STATES INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

AMENDMENT TO ORDER 

On order of the Court, the order of September 27, 2006 is amended to 

correct a clerical error by correcting the case title to read as set forth above to accurately 

reflect the identity of the appellants. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 25, 2006 

 Clerk
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winton Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Jill M. Burke, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report 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/ Jill M. Burke
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Jill M. Burke
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

                                                     Date:  May 13, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Winton Financial Corporation and will be retained by Winton
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
## ATTACHMENT B: IEPS REPORTING SYSTEM PROPOSED SCREENS 

# INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL **PUBLIC POLICY (IIPP) POSTGRADUATE**  **AGGREGATE DATA**

CFDA NUMBER: 84.269A

IEPS REPORTING SYSTEM PROPOSED SCREENS

## IIPP Project Director - Postgraduate Aggregate Data for Award Number: __________

_ The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 requires that the Secretary of Educatio n assist grantees in developing a survey to administer to students to determine postgraduate employment, education, or training. Grantees are required to administer the survey once every two years and report the results to the Secretary. Click on the Post Aggregate Data link below to access the screen to enter your surve y data. Click here to view sample survey questions that you may use. You are welcome to add questions to the survey. The su rvey will not be administered via IRIS. You should use your own survey process for reaching former fellows. Only the aggregate results of your survey will be reported in IRIS. Click on the List of Fellows link to download an Excel spreadsheet of your fellows. Note that the spreadsheet i s a cumulative list of fellows for successive reporting periods.

Action Award Period Due Date Download Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2009-2010 10/1/2011 List of Fellows Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2009-2012 10/1/2013 List of Fellows Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2009-2014 10/1/2015 List of Fellows Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2009-2016 10/1/2017 List of Fellows Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2009-2018 10/1/2019 List of Fellows 

### IEPS - International Resource Information System (IRIS)

## IIPP Postgraduate Aggregate Data

Please complete the information below. Click here to view a list of suggested survey questions.
Employment: How many fellows did you contact? How many responded? How many are currently employed? Of the number employed, how many indicated they are using the training they received during their IIPP fellowship?

Please fill in the fellows’ employment sectors in the table below.

Sector Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Elementary or secondary education Federal government Foreign government Graduate study Higher education International organization (in U.S.) International organization (outside U.S.) Private sector (for profit) Private sector (non-profit) State or local government Unemployed or out of job market Unknown U.S. military Total Students Placed Total Students Awarded Degrees 0 0 0 

### IEPS - International Resource Information System (IRIS)Please indicate the languages studies by the fellows who responded to the survey. Language Number of Fellows

Education or

Training: Which degrees did the fellows receive as a result of IIPP support ?

Discipline Bachelor's Master's Doctorate

How many received additional degrees or certificates? Bachelor's Master's Doctorate How many additional degrees or certificates had a language component? How many additional degrees or certificates had an area o r international studies component? 

### IEPS - International Resource Information System (IRIS)
DAVID F. SHAYNE 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, W ASlUNGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2165 

FACSIMILE: (425)227-1007 

- ~ 20!5 

HEARING 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

William A. Curtright 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

FAA Case No. 2014NM090046 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

COMPLAINANT'S SUPPEMENTAL PLEADING 

Complainant hereby responds to the ALJ's Order of October 21,2015, in the above-captioned 

matter as follows: 

1. Proof of service via certified mail return receipt requested is attached hereto. 

2. Complainant acknowledges that the ALJ's calculation of Respondent's last day to have 

filed a timely Answer as being June 23, 2015 is correct. 

For the reasons previously set forth, Complainant requests its Motion to Dismiss the appeal be 

granted. 

Respectfullys~bmitted this 291

h day of October 2015. 

r; 

DAVID F. SHAYNE 

FAA Attorney 

COMPLAINANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING 

FAA v. William A. Curtright 

Docket No. FAA-2015-13!9 

FAA Case No. 20!4NM090046 

Page I of2 

DAVID F. SHAYNE. FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Complainant's Supplemental Pleading has been served as 

designated by the recipient this date, to the following: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan (Facsimile and First Class Mail) 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-31 0) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration (Facsimile and First Class Mail) 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Fax: (202) 267-1293 

William A. Curtright (First Class Mail) 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Dated this 291

h day of October 2015. 

Terri Kirk ' 

Office of Regional Counsel ( ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425) 227-2007 

COMPLAJNANT"S SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING 

FAA v. William A. Curtright 

DAVID F. SHAYNE. FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

FAA Case No. 20 14NM090046 

Page 2 of2 
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION 

• Complete items 1, 2~ and 3. Also complete 

item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 

• Print your name and address on the reverse 

so that we can return the card to you. 

• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 

or on the .front if space permits. 

1. Article Addressed to: 

William A. Curtright 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 

Agent 

Addressee 

3. Service Type 

~Certified MaiJ® 0 Priority Mail Express""' 

D Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 

D Insured Mail 0 Collect on Delivery 

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ,[] ye!" 

2. Article Number 

(Transfer from service fat 7013 2250 0002 0203 0485 

PS Form 3811, July 2013 D ~ Domestic Return Receipt Clc.'>'Yt "f:CA·; ,_)----
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase CommercialMortgage Securities Corp.

383 Madison Avenue

31st Floor

New York, New York 10179

 

Re:  Annual Statement ofCompliance for DBJPM 2016-C3 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2016-C3

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of August 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the

"Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Burgess, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 216]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered August 25, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (three counts) and attempted robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of three counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]) and one count of attempted robbery in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 160.10 [2] [b]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his unqualified waiver of the right to appeal is valid and encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Although defendant’s further contention that Supreme Court failed to apprehend the extent of its discretion in imposing a period of postrelease supervision is not encompassed by the waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Porter,*9 AD3d 887 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 710 [2004]; *People v Stanley,*309 AD2d 1254 [2003]), we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit. “The court’s statement . . . with respect to the imposition of a five-year period of postrelease supervision does not, without more, indicate that the court erroneously believed that it lacked discretion to impose a shorter period” *(Porter,*9 AD3d at 887; *see People v Tyes,*9 AD3d 899 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 682 [2004]; *cf. Stanley,*309 AD2d at 1254-1255). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.