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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 314

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt 

mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act 

with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured 

by a first lien, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 314 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mortgage Servicing 

3 Clarification Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MORTGAGE SERVICING CLARIFICATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Fair Debt Collection Prac6 tices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating section 818 as section 819; 

8 and 

9 (2) by inserting after section 817 the following 

10 new section: 

11 ‘‘§ 818. Mortgage servicer exemption 

12 ‘‘(a) EXEMPTION.—A covered mortgage servicer who, 

13 whether by assignment, sale or transfer, becomes the per14 son responsible for servicing federally related mortgage 

15 loans secured by first liens that include loans that were 

16 in default at the time such person became responsible for 

17 the servicing of such federally related mortgage loans shall 

18 be exempt from the requirements of section 807(11) in 

19 connection with the collection of any debt arising from 

20 such defaulted federally related mortgage loans. 

21 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the 

22 following definitions shall apply: 

23 ‘‘(1) COVERED MORTGAGE SERVICER.—The 

24 term ‘covered mortgage servicer’ means any servicer 

25 of federally related mortgage loans secureded by 

26 first liens—
3

HR 314 RFS 

1 ‘‘(A) who is also debt collector; and 

2 ‘‘(B) for whom the collection of delinquent 

3 debts is incidental to thehe servicer’s primary 

4 function of servicing current federally related 

5 mortgageege loans. 

6 ‘‘(2) FEDERALLY RELATED MORTGAGE LOAN.—

7 The term ‘federally related mortgage loan’ has the 

8 meaning given to such term in section 3(1) of the 

9 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, ex10 cept that, for purposes of this section, such term in11 cludes only loans secured by first liens. 

12 ‘‘(3) PERSON.—The term ‘person’ has the 

13 meaning given to such term in section 3(5) of the 

14 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974. 

15 ‘‘(4) SERVICER; SERVICING.—The terms 

16 ‘servicer’ and ‘servicing’ have the meanings given to 

17 such terms in section 6(i) of the Real Estate Settle18 ment Procedures Act of 1974.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 

21 1692 et seq.) is amended—

22 (1) by redesignating the item relating to section 

23 818 as section 819; and 
4

HR 314 RFS 

1 (2) by inserting after the item relating to sec2 tion 817 the following new item:

‘‘818. Mortgage servicer exemption.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSupersonic aerodynamic characteristics of some reentry concepts for angles of attack to 90 degPast studies of reentry vehicles tested to high angles of attack (up to 90 deg) in the Mach number range from 2 to 4.8 are reviewed. Two basic planforms are considered: highly-swept deltas and circular. The delta concepts include variations in cross section (and thus volume) and in camber distribution. The effectiveness of various types of aerodynamic control devices is also included. The purpose of the paper is to examine the characteristics of the vehicles with a view toward the potential usefulness of such concepts in a flight regime that would include reentry from space into the atmosphere followed by a transition to sustained atmospheric flight.Document ID19860006773Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSpearman, M. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1985Subject CategoryLaunch Vehicles And Space VehiclesReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-87645NAS 1.15:87645Accession Number86N16243Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-69-41-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860006773.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the
annual report of Bell Microproducts Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, W. Donald Bell, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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: June 28, 2009 |  | /s/ W. Donald Bell     
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021453EN.01000101.xml

| 9.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 453/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 453/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

8 November 2021

(2021/C 453/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1579 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,29 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4383 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85478 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,9588 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0591 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 150,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8745 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,252 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 359,76 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5956 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9491 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 11,2782 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5621 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4411 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0175 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6151 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5611 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 368,52 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,3716 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4048 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5188 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 507,40 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8111 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,019 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 82,6617 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,211 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,4669 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,6244 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,8135 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1579

JPY

Japanese yen

131,29

DKK

Danish krone

7,4383

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85478

SEK

Swedish krona

9,9588

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0591

ISK

Iceland króna

150,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8745

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,252

HUF

Hungarian forint

359,76

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5956

RON

Romanian leu

4,9491

TRY

Turkish lira

11,2782

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5621

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4411

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0175

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6151

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5611

KRW

South Korean won

1 368,52

ZAR

South African rand

17,3716

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4048

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5188

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 507,40

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8111

PHP

Philippine peso

58,019

RUB

Russian rouble

82,6617

THB

Thai baht

38,211

BRL

Brazilian real

6,4669

MXN

Mexican peso

23,6244

INR

Indian rupee

85,8135

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 99.3





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Richard D. Brounstein, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (No.2) of Calypte Biomedical Corporation;





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





3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;





Date: December 20, 2002





/s/    RICHARD D. BROUNSTEIN Richard D. Brounstein Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
**EXHIBIT 12.2**
I, John O. Ottestad, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofNorsk Hydro ASA, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Norsk Hydro ASA; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the companyand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thecompany’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe company’s internal control over financial reporting.      Date: June 30, 2004/s/ John O. Ottestad  John O. Ottestad  Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Steven C. Mayer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial
officer) of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, to the best of my knowledge,
based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 of the
Registrant (the Report), that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Steven C. Mayer
Name: Steven C. Mayer
Date: March 15, 2005
§ 611.1152 Authority over equity investments in UBEs for business activity. ( a ) *Regulation, supervisory, oversight, examination and enforcement authority.* FCA has regulatory, supervisory, oversight, examination and enforcement authority over each System institution's equity investment in or control of a UBE and the services and functions that a UBE performs for the System institution. This includes FCA's authority to require a System institution's dissolution of, disassociation from, or divestiture of an equity investment in a UBE, or to otherwise condition the approval of equity investments in UBEs.
( b ) *Assessing UBE investments and business activity.* In accordance with section 5.15 of the Act, the cost of regulating and examining System institutions' activities involving UBEs will be taken into account when assessing a System institution for the cost of administering the Act.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6822

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LOFTON HOWARD LAMBERT, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-93-5, CA-96-867-R) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret McLeod Cain, MARGARET MCLEOD CAIN, P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lambert , Nos. CR-93-5; CA-96-867-R (W.D. Va. May 18, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 308.179 Settlement negotiations.

If counsel for the FDIC and the applicant believe that the issues in a fee application can be settled, they may jointly file with the Administrative Officer with a copy to the administrative law judge a statement of their intent to negotiate a settlement. The filing of this statement shall extend the time for filing an answer under § 308.171 for an additional 30 days, and further extensions may be granted by the administrative law judge upon the joint request of counsel for the FDIC and the applicant.

[86 FR 2251, Jan. 12, 2021]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24128]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB) for the 
Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG), as 
required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB provides fair and impartial 
review of SES performance appraisals and makes recommendations 
regarding performance ratings and performance awards to the Inspector 
General.

DATES: Effective October 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Phyllis Hughes, Director, Human 
Capital Advisory Services, Administration and Management, DoD OIG, 400 
Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 602-4516.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following executives are appointed to the DoD OIG, PRB:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Coe, Jr........................  Assistant Inspector General for
                                          Information Technology Audits
                                          and Computer Crime
                                          Investigations, Department of
                                          Education.
Karen Ellis............................  Assistant Inspector General for
                                          Investigations, Department of
                                          Agriculture.
Marla Freedman.........................  Assistant Inspector General for
                                          Audit, Department of Treasury.
Lisa Martin............................  General Counsel, United States
                                          Postal Service, Office of
                                          Inspector General.
Linda Snider...........................  Assistant Inspector General for
                                          Resource Management,
                                          Department of Energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: September 28, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-24128 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
42558.

#### LOVE, by Next Friend v. HUDSON et al.

Frankum, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff’s petition for damages alleged that the defendants were operators of a motion picture theater; that they sold to the plaintiff, a minor of tender years, a ticket for admission thereto; that plaintiff entered, took his seat, viewed a portion of the picture, and went to sleep; that when the plaintiff awoke the theater was dark, and after his calls for help went unanswered, he was injured while attempting to escape from the locked theater by existing through a bathroom window; “that it was the duty of the *223said defendants to use such care as is required by law to so operate, control and maintain” the theater “to protect its customers in all respects”; that defendants did not use the care required by law, but, on the contrary, carelessly and negligently failed to control and maintain the theater in disregard of the safety of their patrons and customers, and thus caused the injury to the plaintiff. While, ordinarily, general allegations of negligence are sufficient as against a general demurrer, this rule does not relieve the- plaintiff from the necessity of alleging some act or omission on the part of the defendants which may reasonably be said to constitute negligence as to the plaintiff. In the instant case the only acts of the defendants alleged are that they operated a motion picture theater, and that they sold a ticket to the plaintiff. No omission of duty in any respect is alleged, and no facts are alleged which could be said to show that the defendants committed an act of negligence. The bare conclusion that the defendants were negligent in failing to use such care as is required by law, being wholly unsupported, were insufficient to withstand a general demurrer, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and in dismissing the petition. *Holloman v. Henry Grady Hotel Co.,*42 Ga. App. 347 (156 SE 275); *Anderson v. Fussell,*75 Ga. App. 866 (44 SE2d 694); *Shaw v. Sullivan,*99 Ga. App. 527 (109 SE2d 95); *Shepherd v. Whigham,*111 Ga. App. 274, 276 (2) (141 SE2d 583); *Davis v. Aiken,*111 Ga. App. 505 (142 SE2d 112).

*Deen and Quillian, JJ., concur.*

Argued January 10, 1967

Decided February 15, 1967.

*Floyd H. Wardlow, Jr.,*for appellant.

*John R. Rogers,*for appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```
**Exhibit 99.1

                             CERTIFICATION OF 10QSB**

I, Douglas Larson of Eldorado Artesian Springs,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") 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)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                          /s/ Douglas Larson
Dated: February 14, 2003
```
§ 404.27 Applicability. This subpart applies exclusively to demands for testimony and/or production of records issued to Ex-Im Bank personnel, in connection with legal proceedings to which Ex-Im Bank is not a party, regarding information acquired in the course of the performance of official duties or due to their official status. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to waive the sovereign immunity of the United States. This subpart shall not apply to the following: ( a ) Demands for testimony and/or production of records pursuant to a legal proceeding to which Ex-Im Bank is a party:
( b ) Demands for testimony and/or production of records in those instances in which Ex-Im Bank personnel are asked to disclose information wholly unrelated to their official duties; and
( c ) Congressional demands and requests for testimony or records.
[71 FR 14361, Mar. 22, 2006. Redesignated at 87 FR 41034, July 11, 2022]