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 Metavante Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank R. Martire, 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 to the best of my 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/    FRANK R. MARTIRE
|Frank R. Martire       
|Chief Executive Officer

May 6, 2009

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(logo)**Prudential**

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PrudentialMortgage Capital Company

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:**RBS 2012****‐****C9**

Period:**January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017(the “Reporting Period”)**

 

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

 

I,Joni Brown‐Haas, in mycapacity as President and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certify with regard to the Company’s role as Sub‐Servicer undertheSub‐ServicingAgreement, (the “Agreement”) dated as of October 1, 2012, pertaining to theabove‐referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledall its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period, and

 

(iii)to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledits obligations under its sub‐servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)the Company has maintained an effective internal control system over theservicing of mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)the Company has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challengingthe status of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from theIRS or any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of 2/22/2018

 

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown‐Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
*Appellee CraigHanks notified this courtthat he was never served with process

in the district court and would not be filing a brief or otherwise participating in this

appeal. After an examination of the appellant’s brief and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the

appellant’s brief and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)).

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 9, 2005*

Decided June 10, 2005

Before

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 04-3924

CONZALOS GLASCO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

CRAIG HANKS, Superintendent,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Southern

District of Indiana, Indianapolis

Division.

No. 1:04-CV-1156-SEB-VSS

Sarah Evans Barker, 

Judge.

ORDER

Indiana inmate Conzalos Glasco petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 after a Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) found him guilty of

making a sexual gesture towards a prison official and sentenced him to three

months in disciplinary segregation. The district court denied his petition on the

basis that he may not use § 2254 to challenge the CAB proceeding because he is not

“in custody” pursuant to the CAB decision. We agree with the district court. 
No. 04-3924 Page 2

Section 2254 allows prisoners to challenge decisions that place them “in custody.” 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Glasco is in custody pursuant to his original judgment of

conviction, and the CAB proceeding did not impose additional custody on him. It

resulted only in disciplinary segregation, and that punishment affects the severity

not the duration of his prison term. See Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641,

643-44 (7th Cir. 2001). A challenge to the disciplinary proceeding is thus not a

challenge to a decision that placed him in custody, so Glasco may not challenge it

under § 2254. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.3





Certification Pursuant To


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Mountain, 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, 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 Company.




Date: April 20, 2016JAVELIN MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CORP.By:/s/ James R. MountainJames R. MountainChief Financial Officer
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2857

To amend title 11, United States Code, to exclude personally identifiable

information from the assets of a debtor in bankruptcy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 12, 2000

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. TORRICELLI, and Mr. KOHL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 11, United States Code, to exclude personally

identifiable information from the assets of a debtor in

bankruptcy.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Privacy Policy En5 forcement in Bankruptcy Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. CERTAIN PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMA7 TION NOT AN ASSET IN BANKRUPTCY.

8 Section 541(b) of title 11, United States Code, is

9 amended—
2

•S 2857 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (4)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘or’’ at

2 the end;

3 (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at

4 the end and inserting ‘‘; or ’’; and

5 (3) adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(6) if the sale or disclosure of personally iden7 tifiable information violates a privacy policy of the

8 debtor in effect at the time at which such informa9 tion was collected, such personally identifiable infor10 mation (including any compilation or record in elec11 tronic or any other form of such information),

12 including—

13 ‘‘(A) a first and last name, whether given

14 at birth or adoption, assumed, or legally

15 changed;

16 ‘‘(B) a home or other physical address, in17 cluding street name and name of city or town;

18 ‘‘(C) an e-mail address;

19 ‘‘(D) a telephone number;

20 ‘‘(E) a Social Security account number;

21 ‘‘(F) a credit card number;

22 ‘‘(G) a birth date, birth certificate number,

23 or place of birth; or
3

•S 2857 IS

1 ‘‘(H) any other identifier that permits the

2 physical or electronic contacting of a specific in3 dividual.’’.

Æ
#### Biddle, Respondent, vs. Biddle, Appellant.

*February 6*

March *5, 1957.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Baumblatt & Goodman*of Racine, and oral argument by *L. P. Baumblatt.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *La France, Thompson, Greenquist, Zahn & Dye*of Racine, and oral argument by *Kenneth L. Greenquist.*

Broadfoot, J.

Sec. 247.37 (2), Stats., provides that the court shall have power to vacate or modify a judgment of divorce for sufficient cause shown at any time within one *256year from the granting of the judgment. In her petition the defendant' alleged that she had reason to believe that the plaintiff had committed adultery after the entry of the judgment.

The findings and the record show that the plaintiff owned a lake cottage near Racine, Wisconsin; that on or about December 23, 1955, plaintiff became engaged to .marry a young lady he had met prior to the entry of the judgment of divorce; that plaintiff and.the young lady of his choice planned to marry as soon as the divorce judgment permitted; that during the month of April, 1956, plaintiff entertained his fiancee at said lake cottage; that on some occasions other persons were present; that on other occasions plaintiff and his fiancee spent several hours alone in the cottage; that the visits were conducted openly and without secrecy and that friends and neighbors were in the habit of calling at the cottage frequently, and that there was no proof from which the court could find that the visits of the young lady were not for a proper purpose. The court concluded that plaintiff had ample opportunity to commit adultery but that defendant had failed to prove any inclination of the plaintiff'or the young lady to commit adultery.

No useful purpose can be served in citing the evidence in detail. However, we have carefully checked the entire record and determine that the judge’s findings, conclusions, and order were amply sustained by the record.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
#### Dukat and wife, Respondents, vs. De Boer Motors, Inc., Appellant.

*March 8*

April 5, *1955.*

*430For the appellant there was a brief by *Stern & O’Brien,*and oral argument by *John M. O’Brien*and *Philip W. Croen,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondents there was a brief and oral argument by *Ben Lewis*of Milwaukee.

*431Brown, J.

The finding that the plaintiff did not give permission for Krause to cover the sidewalk is contrary both to the written permission and to plaintiff’s interpretation of the intent of the writing. The finding that the location of the easement originally granted on August 7, 1947, has not been changed by any of the parties to the original conveyance or their successors in title is also contrary to the undisputed evidence. The written demand made by plaintiff’s counsel on June 13, 1950, locates the easement then claimed by plaintiff by reference to an iron post which is on the northwest corner of the original Northern Realty Company lot, whereas the sidewalk in dispute ran south from that lot’s northeast corner, approximately three and one-half feet west of the easterly line of the lot. When the parties met, after defendant had received the written demand, to discuss plaintiff’s objections, plaintiff himself testified that the area immediately adjoining the west line was the easement which he claimed and wished to have kept clear. Plaintiff’s own testimony establishes the fact that the parties had relocated the original easement by mutual consent. The court’s findings to the contrary are against all the credible evidence and when corrected will not support the judgment which therefore must be reversed.

Defendant has asked that this court use its equity powers to define the easement to which plaintiff is entitled. Plaintiff’s original easement was approximately two and one-half feet wide. His demand on defendant for an unobstructed easement along the west lotline was acceded to by defendant by outlining in yellow paint a four-foot strip along that line. This gave plaintiff slightly more width than he had in his original easement but it is clear that it met plaintiff’s demand as to location. We must hold that this easement has been substituted by mutual agreement for the original one.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment locating *432an easement for the benefit of plaintiff’s premises over and upon the westerly four feet in width of defendant’s premises and extending from Forest Home avenue to the northern boundary line of plaintiff’s property, as such premises are described in the judgment previously entered herein.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 30047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Michael J Smith Field, Beaufort, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
Beaufort-Morehead City Airport Authority to waive the requirement that 
approximately 7.5 acres of airport property, located at the Michael J 
Smith Field, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, Attn: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia 
Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Ken Lohr, Chairman, Beaufort-Morehead City 
Airport Authority at the following address: Beaufort-Morehead City 
Airport Authority, P.O. Box 875, Beaufort, NC 28516-0875.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta 
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-
260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7142. The application may be 
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the 
Beaufort-Morehead City Airport Authority to release approximately 7.5 
acres of airport property at the Michael J Smith Field. The property 
consists of one parcel located on the north side of West Beaufort Road. 
The proposed use of this land is for the realignment of US 70 and is 
compatible with airport operations. Any person may inspect the request 
in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the 
request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at 
the Michael J Smith Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on May 8, 2012.
Larry F. Clark,
Acting Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-12053 Filed 5-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
Supplemental Indenture sociedad anónima de capital variable Issuer New First Priority Guarantor Trustee Indenture
 W I T N E S S E T H :
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 First Priority Guarantees
 Trustee
 Effect on Indenture
 Counterparts
 Governing Law




---



##### 



SATÉLITES MEXICANOS, S.A. DE C.V.By:
    /s/ LUIS FERNANDO STEIN VELASCOName:
    Luis Fernando Stein VelascoTitle:
    CFOBy:
    /s/ BERTHA ALICIA ORDAZ AVILÉSName:
    Bertha Alicia Ordaz AvilésTitle:
    Legal RepresentativeALTERNATV INTERNATIONAL CORP.By:
    /s/ LUIS FERNANDO STEIN VELASCOName:
    Luis Fernando Stein VelascoTitle:
    CFO & TreasurerBy:
    /s/ VERÓNICA GUTIERREZ ZAMORA GARCÍAName:
    Verónica Gutierrez Zamora GarcíaTitle:
    VP Legal AffairsHSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONBy:
    /s/ JOSEPH A. LLORETName:
    Joseph A. LloretTitle:
    Assistant Vice President Signature Page to the First Priority Supplemental Indenture
November 17, 2010 

Mr. Russ Adamson 

President 

Wencor, LLC 

1625 North 1100 West 

Springville, UT 84663 

Dear Mr. Adamson: 

We received your September 10, 2010, email and September 22, 2010, letter (public docket 

No. FAA-2010-0759) which you requested an exemption from § 21.303(b)(4) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

The FAA determined the relief you sought should be addressed through our deviation 

process; and forwarded your request to the Seattle Manufacturing Inspection District Office 

(MIDO) for a final decision. The MIDO responded to your request on October 5, 2010. A 

copy of that response is enclosed. 

Because the relief you seek has been handled as a deviation, we will take no further action on 

your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Courtney 

Manager, Aircraft and Airports Rules Division 

Enclosure
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 286

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in

the tax on social security benefits.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1999

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the increase in the tax on social security benefits.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Senior Citizens’ Equity

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY

7 BENEFITS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 86 of the

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to social security
2

•S 286 IS

1 and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits) is amended by

2 adding at the end the following new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(3) PHASEOUT OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.—In

4 the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar

5 year after 1998 and before 2003, paragraph (2)

6 shall be applied by substituting the percentage deter7 mined under the following table for ‘85 percent’ each

8 place it appears:

‘‘In the case of a taxable

year beginning in calendar year: The percentage is:

1999 .......................................................................... 75 percent

2000 .......................................................................... 65 percent

2001 .......................................................................... 60 percent

2002 .......................................................................... 55 percent.’’

9 (b) TERMINATION OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.—Para10 graph (2) of section 86(a) of such Code is amended by

11 adding at the end the following new flush sentence:

12 ‘‘This paragraph shall not apply to any taxable year

13 beginning after December 31, 2002.’’

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

16 December 31, 1998.

Æ
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA-23-0505

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE 

OF KEVIN THIELMANN,

Deceased.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CAUSE No. DA-23-0505

ORDER GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

UPON REVIEW of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Reply Brief (Unopposed) and with good cause being shown first;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant’s deadline to file their Reply 

Brief in this matter is hereby RESET for the 30th day of January, 2024.

No further extensions will be granted.

ELECTRONICALLY DATED AND SIGNED BELOW.

CC;

- Patrick F. Flaherty

- Garry Bjelland

- Heather Starnes

- Patrick Watt

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 21 2023

12/21/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0505
# News

                                Sholl selected as UT-ORII executive director                            

                                Dealing with stress in large-scale additive manufacturing                            

                                Dilling named associate laboratory director for neutron sciences                             

## Filter News

### Area of Research

            - (-)Data(1)
            - Advanced Manufacturing(34)
            - Biological Systems(18)
            - Biology and Environment(177)
            - Biology and Soft Matter(5)
            - Building Technologies(12)
            - Chemical and Engineering Materials(4)
            - Chemistry and Physics at Interfaces(11)
            - Clean Energy(522)
            - Climate and Environmental Systems(14)
            - Computational Biology(6)
            - Computational Chemistry(5)
            - Computational Engineering(5)
            - Computer Science(19)
            - Earth Sciences(1)
            - Electricity and Smart Grid(3)
            - Energy Frontier Research Centers(14)
            - Energy Sciences(5)
            - Fossil Energy(3)
            - Fuel Cycle Science and Technology(3)
            - Functional Materials for Energy(16)
            - Fusion and Fission(54)
            - Fusion Energy(17)
            - Geographic Information Science and Technology(3)
            - Isotope Development and Production(3)
            - Isotopes(35)
            - Materials(432)
            - Materials Characterization(2)
            - Materials for Computing(36)
            - Materials Synthesis from Atoms to Systems(13)
            - Materials Under Extremes(12)
            - Mathematics(1)
            - National Security(78)
            - Neutron Data Analysis and Visualization(4)
            - Neutron Science(190)
            - Nuclear Science and Technology(74)
            - Nuclear Systems Modeling, Simulation and Validation(3)
            - Nuclear Systems Technology(1)
            - Quantum Condensed Matter(4)
            - Quantum information Science(9)
            - Reactor Technology(1)
            - Renewable Energy(4)
            - Sensors and Controls(5)
            - Supercomputing(311)
            - Transportation Systems(11)

### News Type

            - Features(1)
            - Profiles(1)

### Date

            - 2017

## Media Contacts

David  Keim

keimdm@ornl.gov

865.576.9122

Morgan  McCorkle

mccorkleml@ornl.gov

865.574.7308

Sara  Shoemaker

shoemakerms@ornl.gov

865.576.9219

## Connect with ORNL

**

**

**

**

**

**

## Get ORNL News

Subscribe

## Connecting the bytes

January 25, 2017

Supercomputers like Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Titan are advancing science at a frenetic pace and helping researchers make sense of data that could have easily been missed, says Ramakrishnan “Ramki” Kannan. Kannan, a computer scientist who came to ORNL in March 2016 after ...

All ORNL News >