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

                                                                    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 JMAR Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Ronald A. Walrod, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Dennis
E. Valentine, 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 to the best of our knowledge:

(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.

                                        By: /s/ Ronald A. Walrod
                                            --------------------------
                                            Ronald A. Walrod
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                        By: /s/ Dennis E. Valentine
                                            -------------------------
                                            Dennis E. Valentine
                                            Chief Financial Officer

November 12, 2003
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,As Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned interimChief Executive Officer of VirtualFund.com, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended December 31, 2001 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  January 13, 2003 | /s/ Joseph D. Pupel                                                                             |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Joseph D. Pupel,                                                                                |
|                         | Interim Chief Executive  Officer (principal executive officer and principal accounting officer) |

 

 

1

----
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T AUGUST 5, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
N o

. 0 9

- 1 5 2 4 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 9

- 0 0 1 1 3

- C V

- K D

- N

S H A W N E E T E R M I N A L R A I L R O A D C O

. , I N C

. ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t ,

v e r s u s

J

. E

. E S T E S W O O D C O

. , I N C

. , A

. A

. N E T T L E S
, S R

. P R O P E R T I E S
, L T D

. ,

D e f e n d a n t s

- A p p e l l e e s

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( A u g u s t 5 , 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e T J O F L A T , C A R N E S a n d R E A V L E Y , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. *

Honora ble Thomas M. Reavle y , United States Circuit J udg e for the Fif th Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation.P E R C U R I A M :

B e f o r e u s i n t h i s a p p e a l i s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h i s

l a w s u i t f o r l a c k o f s u b

j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n

. A f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s
j u d g m e n t , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i s s u e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n H e r t z v

. F r i e n d
, 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 1 1 8 1

( 2 0 1 0 )

. B o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t w e s h o u l d v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t a n d r e m a n d t h e

c a s e t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e H e r t z d e c i s i o n ,

a l t h o u g h t h e y d i s a g r e e a b o u t w h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d d o i n l i g h t o f t h a t

d e c i s i o n

. W e l e a v e i t t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o d e c i d e a s a n i n i t i a l m a t t e r w h a t i t

s h o u l d d o o n r e m a n d i n l i g h t o f t h e H e r t z d e c i s i o n , b u t a g r e e w i t h t h e p a r t i e s t h a t

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s i n o r d e r

.

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t i s V A C A T E D a n d t h e c a s e i s R E M A N D E D t o

t h a t c o u r t f

o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s i n t e r v e n i n g

d e c i s i o n i n H e r t z v

. F r i e n d
, 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 1 1 8 1 ( 2 0 1 0 )

. 1

This case was orig inally

schedule d for or al ar g ument, but the panel ha s unanimously 1 decide d that it is unnecessar y . See 11th Cir. R. 34-3(f)

.

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua J. Nesbitt, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 139]

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered May 30, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

*837Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of a superior court information filed against him. Defendant also waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant to four years in prison, to run concurrently with two sentences imposed in Albany County,* and ordered payment of restitution.

Defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see People v Bethea,*19 AD3d 813, 814 [2005]; *People v Rogers,*15 AD3d 682, 682 [2005]). Insofar as defendant’s challenge involves the voluntariness of his plea, it is not precluded by the waiver, however, defendant’s failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment renders this issue unpreserved for our review *(see People v Bethea, supra*at 814; *People v Sales,*18 AD3d 962, 962 [2005]). Inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea proceeding which cast doubt upon his guilt, were inconsistent with his guilt or negated an essential element of the crime, the exception to the preservation rule does not apply *(see People v Bethea, supra*at 814; *People v Sales, supra*at 962; *People v Rogers, supra*at 682-683). In any event, defendant’s claims are without merit. County Court thoroughly advised defendant of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and defendant acknowledged that he understood those rights and admitted to having committed the crime charged *(see People v Sales, supra*at 962; *People v Teague,*295 AD2d 813, 814 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 772 [2002]). Finally, we will not consider defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence in light of the valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Bethea, supra*at 814; *People v Sales, supra*at 963; *People v Rogers, supra*at 683).

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ, concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 Defendant’s challenges to the sentences imposed in Albany County are also rejected *(People v Nesbitt,*23 AD3d 837 [2005] [decided herewith]; *People v Nesbitt,*23 AD3d 838 [2005] [decided herewith]).
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

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

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*

* *
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1156 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1156

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel BIG DAD.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 1995

   Mr. Shaw introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel BIG DAD.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel BIG DAD (United States 
official number 565022).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1259 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1259

To amend title 10, United States Code, to give a priority to the States 
  for the transfer of nonlethal excess supplies of the Department of 
                                Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1995

Mr. Jefferson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to give a priority to the States 
  for the transfer of nonlethal excess supplies of the Department of 
                                Defense.

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

SECTION 1. PRIORITY TO STATES FOR THE TRANSFER OF NONLETHAL EXCESS 
              SUPPLIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

    Section 2547 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``The Secretary of 
        Defense'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Subject to subsection 
        (d), the Secretary of Defense'';
            (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
        subsection (d):
    ``(d) Nonlethal excess supplies of the Department of Defense shall 
be made available to a State, a local government of a State, a 
Territory, or a possession, upon the request of the State, local 
government, Territory, or possession pursuant to authority provided in 
another provision of law, before such supplies are made available for 
humanitarian relief purposes under this section. The President may make 
such supplies available for humanitarian purposes before such supplies 
are made available to a State, local government, Territory, or 
possession under this subsection in order to respond to an emergency 
for which such supplies are especially suited.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### SARAH R. CLINTON v. COMMERCIAL TRIBUNE COMPANY.

*Communication to reporters not*privileged—

A communication made to a newspaper reporter and afterwards published, is not privileged, and a question, in an action for libel, as to who furnished the information, is both material and competent.

This is a suit for damages for alleged libel, and the present hearing was on a motion to commit the writer of an article for contempt for refusing to divulge the name of his informant.

*J. H. Cabell,*for notary.

*Thornton M. Hinkle,*for Boissard.

Smith, j.

In the above case wherein George A. Boissard, while giving his deposition before .a notary public, declined to answer certain questions propounded upon the grounds:

First. That the communications made were privileged.

Second. That the questions were irrevelant, incompetent and immaterial.

The witness does not come within the statute relating to privileged communications, and it seems to the court that the questions, are material and competent as bearing upon 'the question of malice in the publication complained of and upon the good faith exercised in investigating the truth or falsity of the facts stated.

It is also, in the opinion of the court, a part of the transaction or *res gestae*of the case, to-wit: the printing of the article. The witness states “it came from a typewriter operated by myself.” The questions as to the *data,*source of information, etc., are sufficiently dose connected with this to make the entire matter one and the same, and the information the witness is asked to disclose part of the *res gestae.*

An order may, therefore, be taken for the .witness to answer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000857571
<NAME> AEP GENERATING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      340,775
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          6
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          42,258
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         3,272
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 391,995
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       27,235
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              4,183
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  32,418
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                 0
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               7,050
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   44,802
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        534
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   262
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 306,829
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  391,995
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       56,866
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               890
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      53,581
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      54,471
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          2,395
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 869
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   3,264
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           819
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,445
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    2,445
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         1,935
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          24,240
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>


</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Additional U.S. Security Assistance for Ukraine

# 									Additional U.S. Security Assistance for Ukraine							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 21, 2023

Ukraine’s resilience, courage, and determination have inspired the world and galvanized U.S. and global efforts to help it defend itself and secure its future.  Following President Biden’s announcement of a new security assistance package for Ukraine, pursuant to a delegation of authority from the President, I am authorizing additional security assistance for Ukraine, which will provide $128 million worth of U.S. arms and equipment from Department of Defense stocks.  The Department of Defense will also be providing $197 million in arms and equipment under previously directed drawdowns.

The arms and equipment include additional air defense munitions to help strengthen Ukraine’s air defenses against aerial assaults from Russia now and in the coming winter, when Russia is likely to renew its attacks against Ukrainian critical infrastructure. It also contains artillery ammunition and anti-armor capabilities, as well as cluster munitions, which will further enhance Ukraine’s capacity to continue its counter-offensive against Russia’s forces.

The United States and Ukraine have forged a partnership that is stronger than ever.  In the past year, Ukraine’s forces have taken back more than 50 percent of the territory seized by Russia’s forces since February of 2022.  We will stand united with Ukraine as it secures its future – a future in which its people rebuild and live safely in a resilient and thriving democracy, fully integrated with Europe.

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentFinanceOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateSecurityUkraineWeapons

Back to Top
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1167

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for

certain adoption expenses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1995

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a

deduction for certain adoption expenses.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN ADOPTION EX4 PENSES.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Part VII of subchapter B of

6 chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

7 to additional itemized deductions for individuals) is

8 amended by redesignating section 220 as section 221 and

9 inserting after section 219 the following new section:
2

•HR 1167 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 220. CERTAIN ADOPTION EXPENSES.

2 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the case of an

3 individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the

4 taxable year the amount of the qualified adoption expenses

5 paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such taxable year.

6 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—

7 ‘‘(1) MAXIMUM DOLLAR AMOUNT.—The aggre8 gate amount of adoption expenses which may be

9 taken into account under subsection (a) with respect

10 to the adoption of a child shall not exceed $2,500.

11 ‘‘(2) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be

13 allowable under subsection (a) for any expense

14 for which a deduction or credit is allowable

15 under any other provision of this chapter.

16 ‘‘(B) GRANTS.—No deduction shall be al17 lowable under subsection (a) for any expenses

18 paid from funds received under any Federal,

19 State, or local program.

20 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED ADOPTION EXPENSES.—For pur21 poses of this section, the term ‘qualified adoption ex22 penses’ means reasonable and necessary adoption fees,

23 court costs, attorneys fees, and other expenses which are

24 directly related to the legal adoption of a child by the tax25 payer and which are not incurred in violation of State or

26 Federal law.’’
3

•HR 1167 IH

1 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT TAX2 PAYER ITEMIZES OTHER DEDUCTIONS.—Subsection (a)

3 of section 62 of such Code is amended by inserting after

4 paragraph (15) the following new paragraph:

5 ‘‘(16) ADOPTION EXPENSES.—The deduction

6 allowed by section 220.’’

7 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

8 for such part VII is amended by striking the last item

9 and inserting the following new items:

‘‘Sec. 220. Certain adoption expenses.

‘‘Sec. 221. Cross reference.’’

10 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

12 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ