alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the annual Report of Bemax Inc., (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Taiwo Aimasiko, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 2, 2017

/s/ Taiwo Aimasiko

____________________________

Taiwo Aimasiko

Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 816 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 816

  To amend the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 to improve reporting 
    about animal testing and alternative test method use by Federal 
                   agencies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2017

 Mr. Calvert (for himself, Mr. Royce of California, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. 
   Bishop of Michigan, Ms. Titus, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Marino, and Ms. 
Roybal-Allard) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 to improve reporting 
    about animal testing and alternative test method use by Federal 
                   agencies, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Accountability in Chemical 
Testing Act'' or the ``FACT Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; PROVISION OF INFORMATION.

    (a) Report Contents.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (7) of section 3(e) of the 
        ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3(e)) is 
        amended by inserting before the period at the end of the 
        paragraph the following: ``, to include a description of the 
        progress on the development, validation, acceptance, and 
        utilization of alternative test methods (including animal use 
        data by species, number, and test type) for toxicological 
        testing conducted, supported, or required by, or submitted to, 
        each Federal agency listed in subsection (c) during the 
        reporting period''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        applies with respect to reports that are made available to the 
        public on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
    (b) Provision of Information.--Section 4 of the ICCVAM 
Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-4) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``(f) Provision of Information.--Each Federal agency carrying out a 
program described in subsection (a), or its specific regulatory unit or 
units, shall provide ICCVAM with information needed to carry out this 
Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
584 A.2d 246

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AARON GREEN.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Russell D. Malone, Respondent, v Jose Morillo et al., Appellants.

[775 NYS2d 312]

*325Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul A. Victor, J.), entered March 4, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when his motor vehicle rear-ended defendants’ motor vehicle after it abruptly stopped in a light-controlled intersection. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, contending that they were stopped for a red light at the time of the occurrence and plaintiff failed to demonstrate a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision. Plaintiff proffered that defendants’ vehicle suddenly stopped in the intersection while the traffic light was yellow. In denying defendants’ motion, the IAS court found that plaintiff furnished a nonnegligent reason for the collision; namely that defendants’ vehicle stopped suddenly in front of plaintiffs vehicle. We reverse.

It is well settled that “[a] driver is expected to drive at a sufficiently safe speed and to maintain enough distance between himself and cars ahead of him so as to avoid collisions with stopped vehicles, taking into account the weather and road conditions” *(Mitchell v*Gonzalez, 269 AB2d 250, 251 [2000]; *Sass v Ambu Trans,*238 AB2d 570 [1997]; *see also*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). Regardless of whether defendants were already stopped at the red light, or stopped suddenly in the middle of the intersection while the light was yellow, we find no nonnegligent explanation by plaintiff for striking defendants’ vehicle in the rear under the present circumstances. In the instant matter, plaintiffs failure to observe traffic conditions and to maintain a safe stopping distance, particularly on a rainy night, was the sole proximate cause of the subject collision (see *Figueroa v Luna,*281 AB2d 204 [2001]; *Johnson v Phillips,*261 AB2d 269, 271 [1999]). Accordingly, the IAS court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin, Williams and Lerner, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       7,213,760
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         114,550
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            19,710,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 22,893,450
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,244,453
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,249,319
<LOANS>                                    111,544,570
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,420,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             169,441,940
<DEPOSITS>                                 151,510,746
<SHORT-TERM>                                   171,496
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,183,207
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,362,104
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,140,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             169,441,940
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,916,351
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              319,887
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               292,547
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,528,785
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,526,689
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,530,592
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,998,193
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   51,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,352,336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                829,900
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     829,900
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   561,858
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements in the RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          24,033
<SECURITIES>                                   261,807
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               365,114
<PP&E>                                          75,549
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 513,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          255,207
<BONDS>                                         70,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           187
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   513,262
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               483,136
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  488,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,247
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,653
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 988 

To provide for a study by the Transportation Research Board of the National 

Academies on the impact of diverting certain freight rail traffic to avoid 

urban areas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2017 

Mr. ELLISON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for a study by the Transportation Research 

Board of the National Academies on the impact of diverting certain freight rail traffic to avoid urban areas, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. STUDY ON IMPACT OF DIVERTING CERTAIN 

4 FREIGHT RAIL TO AVOID URBAN AREAS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 months after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation shall make appropriate arrangements with the 

8 Transportation Research Board of the National AcadVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:26 Feb 17, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H988.IH H988

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 988 IH

1 emies under which the Board shall conduct a study on 

2 the cost and impact of rerouting freight rail traffic con3 taining hazardous material to avoid transportation of such 

4 hazardous material through urban areas. 

5 (b) CONTENTS OF STUDY.—The study described 

6 under subsection (a) shall include— 

7 (1) the benefits of rerouting freight rail traffic 

8 containing hazardous material to alternate railroad 

9 routes that avoid urban areas, including benefits to 

10 the health and safety of the individuals living in 

11 such urban areas; 

12 (2) the benefits of construction of alternative 

13 railroad routes that avoid urban areas for transpor14 tation of freight rail containing hazardous material; 

15 (3) the logistical feasibility of the actions de16 scribed in paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

17 (4) the costs of taking the actions described in 

18 paragraphs (1) and (2). 

19 (c) REPORT.—In entering into an arrangement under 

20 subsection (a), the Secretary shall request that the Board 

21 transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study 

22 not later than 21 months after the date of enactment of 

23 this Act. 

24 (d) DEFINITIONS.— 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 988 IH

1 (1) HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.—The term ‘‘haz2 ardous material’’ has the meaning given such term 

3 in section 5102 of title 49, United States Code. 

4 (2) URBAN AREA.—The term ‘‘urban area’’ 

5 means an urban area, as designated by the Bureau 

6 of the Census, with a population of greater than 

7 30,000. 

8 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

9 are authorized to be appropriated $850,000 to carry out 

10 this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
584 A.2d 241

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH BLACK, A/K/A EDDIE DENNIS.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 35.3


Navient Solutions, LLC - Master Servicer
 11100 USA Parkway
 Fishers, IN 46037
 Attention: Nancy Haas
 
 Pursuant to Section 11.03 of the Amended and Restated Omnibus Subservicing Agreement dates February 8, 2016 among Nelnet Servicing, LLC, successor
        Subservicer to Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly known as Navient Solutions, Inc.) as the master servicer and administrator (the "Servicing Agreement"), the undersigned certifies that (a) a review of the
        Subservicer's activities during the period from July 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision; and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
        Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligation under the Servicing Agreement, in all material respects, during such period.
 
 /s/ Joseph E. Popevis
 Joseph E. Popevis, President
 Nelnet Servicing, LLC
Exhibit
13.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. Section 1350



In
connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”)
by Therapix Biosciences Ltd. (the "Company"), the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 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: May 1, 2017 | /s/
    Elran Haber               
|----------------- | ----------------------------------
|                  | Name:
    Dr. Elran Haber         
|                  | Title:
    Chief Executive Officer
585 A.2d 370

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN R. DYE, III.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         90,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,448
<CGS>                                           82,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (62)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                       573
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,032
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,032
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-5 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my
knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.

Date: March 31, 2015



|                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                            
|/S/ SOMSAK
CHIVAVIBUL                                                                                       
|Somsak Chivavibul President and Chief
Financial Officer (Senior Securitization Officer) Navient Funding, LLC
Order entered December 21, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01539-CR

DEVANTE JEROME FOSTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-31115-R

ORDER

On July 6, 2016, seven volumes of reporter’s record were filed in this appeal. Volume 4, 

however, was from another appeal involving trial court cause number F14-57284. On December 

19, 2016, the correct volume 4 was filed in this case. We STRIKE the volume 4 of the 

reporter’s record filed on July 6, 2016, bearing the trial court number F14-57284. This case is at 

issue and will be set for submission in due course. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
585 A.2d 388

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CARL YOUNG, JR.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1354

WARREN A. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF GEORGIA; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(CA-05-315-PJM)

Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 8, 2005

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren A. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Warren A. Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order transferring his consolidated civil action to the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (2000). This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.

541 (1949). The order Taylor seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In

re Carefirst of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny as

moot Taylor’s motions for a statement in lieu of transcript, to

submit the case on the brief, to expedite his appeal, and for a

stay of the judgment pending appeal, and we dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. 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