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 of B2Digital, Inc., (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Russell, Chief Executive Officer and Marcia Pearlstein, Interim 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 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/ Robert Russell
                                  -------------------------------------
                                  Robert Russell
                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                  /s/ Marcia Pearlstein
                                  -------------------------------------
                                  Marcia Pearlstein
                                  Interim Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 28, 2005

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
### Simulation of unsteady flow in the Milwaukee Harbor Estuary at Milwaukee, Wisconsin

By: L. B. House

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wri864050

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

This report describes the application and results of an unsteady-flow model for the Milwaukee Harbor Estuary. The model simulates unsteady and upstream flow occurring in the estuary as a result of Lake Michigan Seiche. The discharge computed by the model indicates that upstream flow occurs throughout the estuary during periods of lake seiche. Flow conditions are extremely unsteady and major flow reversals may occur within 1 hr. The simulated discharge indicates that both upstream and downstream flows four times greater than the average daily discharge can occur during the same day. An estimate of 5- or 15-minute average discharge was required during selected runoff events and at various locations in the estuary as part of the Milwaukee Harbor Estuary study. The model provides a method to estimate 5-minute average discharges at selected cross sections in the estuary. The U.S. Geological Survey 's Branch Network Model was used to simulate stage and discharge. A finite difference computation scheme is used to solve the one-dimensional flow equations. Model input requirements include channel geometry data, discharge at the upstream tributaries, and stage data at the estuary mouth. The model was used to simulate the flow during six selected time periods in 1982-84 using a 5- or 15-minute computation interval. (Author 's abstract)

#### Study Area

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.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 309]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ309.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 3010]]

Public Law 110-309
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   42222 Rancho Las Palmas Drive in Rancho Mirage, California, as the 
``Gerald R. Ford Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 12, 2008 -  [H.R. 
                                6085]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GERALD R. FORD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 42222 Rancho Las Palmas Drive in Rancho Mirage, California, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Gerald R. Ford Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Gerald R. 
Ford Post Office Building''.

    Approved August 12, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6085:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            June 17, 18, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O S . A P - 7 6 , 4 9 9 & A P - 7 6 , 5 0 0

E X P A R T E C A L V I N J A R R O D H E S T E R , A p p l i c a n t

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

C A U S E N O S . 5 4 , 9 9 7 - 0 1 - E & 5 4 , 9 9 6 - 0 1 - E I N T H E 1 0 8 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T

T H F R O M P O T T E R C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provi s i o n s o f Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmit t ed t o t h i s C o u rt these applications for writs of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant enter ed open pleas of g uilty
to two char g es of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, and was sentenc ed to thirty y ear s’ imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed his convictions. Hester v. State , Nos. 07-07-0474- CR & 07-07-0475- CR (Tex. App. – Amarillo, November 19, 2009)

. A p p li c a n t c o n te n d s th a

t h is appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use counse l2

failed to timely notify Applicant that his convictions had been aff irmed and failed to advise him of his right to petition for discr etionary revie w pro se. Appellate counsel filed an aff id avit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit and other evidenc e in the habea s rec ord, it appea rs that appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his c onvictions ha d been aff irmed and failed to a dvise him of his r ight to pe tition for discretionar y revie w pro se. We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time petitions for discretionar

y revie w of the judgme nts of the Seventh Court of Appea ls in Cause Nos. 07 -07-0474-CR and 07-07-0475- CR that aff irmed his convictions in Cause Nos. 54,996-E and 54,997-E from the 108th J udicial District Court of Potter County

. Applicant shall file his petitions for discretionar

y revie w with the Seventh Court of Appea ls within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 9, 2011 Do not publish
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 352.5 Authorized issuing and paying agents.

Series HH bonds were issued and may be redeemed only by Federal Reserve Banks (see § 352.13) and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

[69 FR 40318, July 2, 2004]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 347.14 Payment (redemption).

Payment of retirement savings bonds will be made to the IRA custodian upon the custodian's submission of a request for redemption to Fiscal Service. The custodian shall request the redemption of all retirement savings bonds at their respective maturity. The custodian shall request the full or partial redemption of a bond held on behalf of a participant upon the request of the participant or other authorized person entitled to amounts in the IRA. Retirement savings bond redemptions will be rounded to the nearest one cent.

[82 FR 6246, Jan. 19, 2017]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 3(a)



                    AMENDMENT TO MINNTECH CORPORATION BY-LAWS
                       EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1995

Section 2.3 of the Company's Bylaws be and hereby is restated in its entirety to
read as follows:

               "Section 2.03.  SPECIAL MEETINGS.  Special meetings of the
               stockholders may be called by the President, the Chief Financial
               Officer, or by the Board of Directors or any two or more members
               thereof only for the purpose of transacting such business as is
               properly brought before the meeting in accordance with these
               Bylaws.  Special meetings may also be called by one or more
               stockholders holding not less than ten percent (10%) of the
               voting power of all shares of the corporation entitled to vote
               (except that a special meeting called for the purpose of
               considering any action to directly or indirectly facilitate or
               effect a business combination, including any action to change or
               otherwise affect the composition of the Board for that purpose,
               must be called by stockholders holding not less than twenty-five
               percent (25%) of the voting power of all shares of the
               corporation entitled to vote), who shall demand such special
               meeting by written notice given to the President or the Chief
               Financial Officer of the corporation specifying the purposes of
               such meeting.  Within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such
               a written demand for a special meeting of stockholders by the
               President or the Chief Financial Officer, the Board of Directors
               shall cause a special meeting of stockholders to be called and
               held on notice no later than ninety (90) days after the receipt
               of such written demand.  Business transacted at any special
               meeting of the stockholders shall be limited to the purpose or
               purposes stated in the notice of meeting."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1506

CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA03-484-RBH) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Thompson, Jr., MALONE, THOMPSON & SUMMERS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Lawrence appeals a district court judgment adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting summary judgment to Westinghouse Savannah River Company LLC and dismissing Lawrence’s complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. SeeLawrence v. Westinghouse , No. CA-03-484-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 2005). We deny Lawrence’s motion to strike the Appellee’s informal brief. 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
www.gpo.gov

### §214. Use of surface of other public lands; acreage; forest lands exception

The holder of any lease or permit issued under the provisions of sections 211 to 214 of this title shall have the right to use so much of the surface of unappropriated and unentered public lands not a part of his lease or permit, not exceeding eighty acres in area, as may be determined by the Secretary to be necessary or convenient for the extraction, treatment, and removal of the mineral deposits, but this provision shall not be applicable to national forest lands.

(Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, §12, 41 Stat. 441; June 3, 1948, ch. 379, §5, 62 Stat. 291; Pub. L. 86–391, §1(b), Mar. 18, 1960, 74 Stat. 8.)

#### Amendments

1960—Pub. L. 86–391 substituted “lease or permit” for “lease” in two places.

1948—Act June 3, 1948, increased lands to be used from 40 to 80 acres, excepted national forest lands from its provisions, and substituted “The holder of any lease issued under the provisions of sections 211 to 214 of this title”, “public lands not a part of his lease”, and “or convenient for the extraction” for “Any qualified applicant to whom the Secretary of the Interior may grant a lease to develop and extract phosphates, or phosphate rock, under the provisions of this chapter”, “lands”, and “for the proper prospecting for or development, extraction”, respectively.

#### Cross References

Surrender of leases, see section 188a of this title.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 213 of this title; title 10 sections 7421, 7435.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0317. STEVEN HARPER v. THE STATE.

After pleading guilty, Steven Harper filed a motion to vacate a void sentence,

arguing that the State failed to provide him proper notice of its intent to seek

recidivist sentencing. On December 13, 2018, the trial court denied the motion.

Harper filed an application for discretionary appeal from this order on January 17,

2019. We lack jurisdiction.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an

application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.

App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Because Harper’s application wasfiled 35 days after

entry of the order he seeksto appeal, it is untimely. We thuslack jurisdiction over this

application for discretionary appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 14, 2019

02/14/2019
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trustand Servicing Agreement dated as of May 30, 2017, by and among J.P. MorganChase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Servicer, Aegon USA Realty Advisors, LLC, as SpecialServicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and Trimont Real EstateAdvisors, LLC, as Operating Advisor, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2017-245P (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement. 

 

Pursuantto Section 13.7 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director ofCommercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 

 

1.                  Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.                 To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period. 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019. 

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### § 546.408 Charitable contributions.

Unless specifically authorized by OFAC pursuant to this part, no charitable contribution of funds, goods, services, or technology, including contributions to relieve human suffering, such as food, clothing, or medicine, may be made by, to, or for the benefit of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 546.201. For the purposes of this part, a contribution is made by, to, or for the benefit of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 546.201 if made by, to, or in the name of such a person; if made by, to, or in the name of an entity or individual acting for or on behalf of, or owned or controlled by, such a person; or if made in an attempt to violate, to evade, or to avoid the bar on the provision of contributions by, to, or for the benefit of such a person.

[74 FR 25432, May 28, 2009, as amended at 89 FR 15752, Mar. 5, 2024]
Exhibit 32

            CERTIFICATIONS OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


      We, Thomas O. Ryder and Michael S. Geltzeiler, of The
Reader's Digest Association, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
      ended March 31, 2005 (the "Periodic Report") which this
      statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2)   information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of The Reader's Digest
      Association, Inc.

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of
Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the Periodic Report.


Dated:  May 4, 2005




                                         /s/ THOMAS O. RYDER
                                           Thomas O. Ryder



                                      /s/ MICHAEL S. GELTZEILER
                                        Michael S. Geltzeiler
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 248.3 Advice of nonreceipt or loss.

The payee or owner of a depositary check which is not received, or which has been lost, stolen, destroyed or mutilated or defaced to such an extent that it is rendered non-negotiable, should immediately notify the disbursing officer who issued such check or the administrative agency exercising jurisdiction over such disbursing officer, over his signature and current address, giving information as to the circumstances of the loss, theft or destruction of the check and whether it was endorsed, and also requesting that payment of the check be stopped. A claimant who is one other than the payee of the check, should present a statement in support of his ownership of the check. If the check has been mutilated or defaced, it should be forwarded to the issuing disbursing officer with request for the issuance of a substitute.
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Secretary Scott A. Angelle Summary

– Should to Must I ssue The Interim Final Rule incorporates industry standards for drilling safety by reference, but by virtue of a single provision makes arbitrary, sweeping blanket changes to those standards and all other standards incorporated by reference in 3 0 C

. F

. R

. P art 250
, with serious adverse and unintended consequences

. The new section 30 C.F.R. § 250.198(a)(3) converts every instance of the word ‘should’ in the referenced documents to ‘must’ in an apparent effort to rende r mandatory every recommendation in a large body of industry standards and guidance. The result does not serve to enhance safety or enforceability: on the co ntrary, it creates a regulation with increased safety risks, mandates that cannot be met, and too many ambiguous and unenforceable requirements to count. The alternative presented below better meet s the need for rigorous incorporation of industry standards applicable to drilling safety in a way that is clear to both agency staff and the regulated industry , and aligns industry and agency engineers on critical safety and design parameters

. Key flaws with the existing approach :

 Applies to every part of 30 C.F.R Part 250 instead of focusing on the purpose of this emergency rule to ensure drilling sa fety enhancements.

 Compromises safety, requires a practice regardless of engineering design or specific circumstances. Leaving these items discretionary in the underlying standards was intentional so as not to undermine good engineering judgment
, require suboptimal practices for a particular project or stifle innovation

.
 Will greatly complicate permitting for both regulated industry and the agency by making numerous departure requests part of every permit.

Recommended Action :

 Delete 30 CFR250.198(a)(3).

 Modify the Final Rule to require Operators to verify and document compliance with API RP 65

– Part 2 and API RP 53 and to submit their documentation with their drilling applications

.

 This documentation and approach would be consistent with the new APD gu idance currently in use by BOEMRE’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office.
Advantages:

 Provides a clear, efficient and enforceable mechanism for ensuring that operators are incorporating best practices as required

.

 F acilitates Agency evaluation in the plannin g and permitting stage to assure compliance

.

 Sharpens the f

ocus of t he IFR to drilling safety and the specific areas of concern that were the cause for the rule

.
#### § 535.317 General license.

A general license is any license or authorization the terms of which are set forth in this part.

[44 FR 66832, Nov. 21, 1979]
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

J-52

This page is intentionally left blank.