alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 ManTech International Corporation (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, George J. Pedersen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ronald R. Spoehel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.



Date: August 5, 2005



|       |  |                                                               
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ GEORGE J. PEDERSEN                                        
|Name:  |  | George J. Pedersen                                            
|Title: |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ RONALD R. SPOEHEL                                         
|Name:  |  | Ronald R. Spoehel                                             
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director

26
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Pursuant to therequirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), theundersigned, Leonard P. Shaykin, Chairman of the Board of Directors and ChiefExecutive Officer of Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) doeshereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

(a)          the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended September 27, 2006 of the Company to whichthis certification is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

(b)         the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 6,2006

|            |       | /s/ LEONARD P.  SHAYKIN                    |
|------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | ** ** | **Leonard P. Shaykin**                     |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Chairman of the Board of Directors and** |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Chief Executive Officer**                |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and will be retained by Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request. Thiscertification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q to which it relates, isnot deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference intoany filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after thedate of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing.

----
F OR P UB LIC AT ION 

### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

CGI T EC HNOL OGI ES AND S OL UTI ONS I NC ., in its capac ity

as sponsor and fiduciar y for CGI Tec hnologie s and Soluti ons, Inc. Welfar e B enef it Pl an, Plaintif f-Appellee , v. RHONDA R O SE ; N EL S ON LANG ER E NGLE PL L C,

De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lla nts . No. 11-35127

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00298- RSM

CGI T EC HNOL OGI ES AND S OL UTI ONS I NC ., in its capac ity

as sponsor and fiduciar y for CGI Tec hnologie s and Soluti ons, Inc. Welfar e B enef it Pl an, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. RHONDA R O SE ; N EL S ON LANG ER E NGLE PL L C, Defendants-A ppellees
. No. 11-35128

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00298- RSM
ORDERCGI T ECH . AND S OL UTI ONS , I NC . V . R O SE 2

T h e H on or abl e R al p h R
. B ei s t l i n e, Chi ef D i s t r i ctJ u dg e f

or t h e U
. S. * D i st ri ct C o urt f

o r t he D i st ri ct of A l aska, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. On Remand F rom The United States Supre me Court

Filed August 16, 2013 B e fo re : Ma

ry M. Sc hr oe de r a

nd Ron a ld M . G ou ld, Cir c uit J udg es, and Ralph R. B eistline, Chief District Judg e. *

OR DE R We v a c ate the dis tric t court ’s or de r an d r e mand thi s c a se to the di strict court for furthe r proc eeding s consistent with US Airways, Inc. v . McCutche n , 1 3 3 S
. Ct. 1537, 569 U.S.___ (2013).
****
**National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNASA History Division**

----

****

----

**The Apollo 8 Flight JournalDavid Woods and Frank O'Brien**

----

*Apollo 8 Flight Journal*
Apollo Flight Journal

Like its companion, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, it is intended to be a resource for all those interested in the Apollo program, whether in a passing or scholarly capacity.

This journal covers the flight of Apollo 8, eventually from launch to splashdown. As a living document, it will continue to grow and evolve and major changes will be intimated in the appropriate internet groups.

Journals for other Apollo flights are available at the AFJ Portal.

----

##### Travelling from the Earth to the Moon

- Day 1: Launch and Ascent to Earth Orbit
- Day 1: Earth Orbit and Translunar Injection
- Day 1: The Green Team and Separation
- Day 1: The Maroon Team
- Day 1: The Black Team
- Day 2: The Green Team
- Day 2: The Maroon Team
- Day 2: The Black Team
- Day 3: The Green Team
- Day 3: The Maroon Team
- Day 3: The Black Team - Approaching the Moon

##### In the Moon's Embrace

- Day 3: Lunar Encounter
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 1
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 2
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 3
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 4
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 5
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 6
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 7
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 8
- Day 4: Lunar Orbit 9
- Day 4: Final Orbit
- Day 4: Trans-Earth Injection

##### Returning to Earth

- Day 4 & 5: The Black Team
- Day 5: The Green Team
- Day 5: The Maroon Team
- Day 5 & 6: The Black Team
- Day 6: The Green Team
- Day 6: The Maroon Team
- Day 6: Re-entry and Splashdown

----

- Document Index
- Photography Index
- Video Index

AFJ portal.

----

updates file.

----

The United States Government retains a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of the Apollo Flight Journal, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.

##### These files are copyright © 2002 - 2024. W. David Woods, Frank J. O'Brien and William Smeaton.

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27038]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessityand Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q)During the Week Ending October 16, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessityand Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart 
B(formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations(See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
ModifyScope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer periodDOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such proceduresmay consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or inappropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0258.
    Date Filed: October 14, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope:November 4, 2010.
    Description:Joint application of Centurion Air Cargo, Inc. 
(``Centurion''), Sky Lease I, Inc.d/b/a TradeWinds Airlines (``Sky 
Lease'') and Arrow Air, Inc. (``Arrow'') requestingapproval of the de 
facto transfer of the international certificate and exemption 
authoritycurrently held by Arrow.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0260.
    Date Filed: October 15, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope:November 5, 2010.
    Description:Application of Air Charter, Inc. dba Air Flamenco 
requesting authority to conductscheduled passenger operations as a 
commuter air carrier.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-27038 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


May 1, 2020


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2028


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


BNY Atlantic Terminal


2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor


Brooklyn, New York 11217


 


Re:  Advisors Disciplined Trust 2028 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-237830 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
|                                |   |                                |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                                |   | State      or Other Jurisdiction of |
| Name      of Subsidiary             |   | Incorporation      or Organization  |
| Idenix      (Massachusetts) Inc.    |   | Massachusetts                       |
| Idenix      Pharmaceuticals S.r.l.* |   | Italy                               |
| Idenix      (UK) Limited       |   | United      Kingdom                 |
| Idenix      (Cayman) Limited        |   | Cayman      Islands                 |
| Idenix      SARL**                  |   | France                              |

|   |   |                                         |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
| *      |   | Wholly-owned      by Idenix SARL             |
|   |   |                                         |
| **     |   | Wholly-owned      by Idenix (Cayman) Limited |

----
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofSeptember 1, 2014 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset ReceivingCorporation as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asCertificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and Situs Holdings, LLCas Operating Advisor relating to the Deutsche Mortgage & Asset ReceivingCorporation, COMM 2014-UBS5 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates **(COMM 2014-UBS5)**

 

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.     Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.     Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.     Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director

 

Date:March 1, 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a

California corporation,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ERIC HENSON,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-55574

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00652-MMABLM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Liberty Media Holdings, LLC (“Liberty”) appeals from the district court’s

judgment dismissing its copyright infringement action for lack of personal

FILED

APR 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.

The district court improperly dismissed Liberty’s action because it did not

first give Liberty notice and an opportunity to assert facts to support the court’s

exercise of personal jurisdiction over Henson. See Tuli v. Republic of Iraq (In re

Tuli), 172 F.3d 707, 712-13 (9th Cir. 1999) (court erred in failing to give plaintiff

notice and an opportunity to present facts supporting personal jurisdiction before

declining to enter a default judgment on the ground that such a showing had not

been made). 

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing Liberty’s action and

remand to the district court for further proceedings. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 12-55574
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 5, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10610 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PHILIP TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-122-ALL-J

-------------------- Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Philip Torres appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The Government’s unopposed motion to file a corrected brief is GRANTED. Torres argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress because Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Toby Schaef violated the Fourth Amendment by interrogating him and his co-defendant David Alberto Avila-No. 04-10610 -2- Coronado (“Avila”) about matters exceeding the scope of the justification for the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion that a crime other than the traffic violation had been or was being committed. Torres does not challenge the district court’s factual finding that Trooper Schaef asked for and received consent to search the vehicle contemporaneously with his issuance of a citation to Avila. As the issuance of a citation is a permissible part of a valid traffic stop, the district court did not err in determining that Trooper Schaef did not extend the detention beyond the valid traffic stop. See United States v. Shabazz , 993 F.2d 431, 437 (5th Cir. 1993). Although Trooper Schaef’s interrogation of Torres and Avila exceeded the scope of the justification for the traffic stop, this did not violate the Fourth Amendment as we have rejected “any notion that a police officer’s questioning, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose of a routine traffic stop , is itself a Fourth Amendment violation.” United States v. Brigham , 382 F.3d 500, 508 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quoting Shabazz , 993 F.2d at 436). Accordingly, Torres’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
Tracking Number: 2011-01-02 (EC-Ol) 


NASA Advisory Council Committees Should Meet as a Group at Least Once a Year 


Recommendation: The Council recommends to the Administrator that its nine committees meet 

as a group and/or in selected groups, at least once a year, with an agenda that cuts across the 

interests ofthe committees and with an opportunity to hear from the Administrator and share 

their perspectives on issues related to NASA activities. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: The previous NASA Administrator had a NASA 

Advisory Council that operated as one unit, with aU members attending the Advisory Council 

meeting. The current NASA Administrator has chosen to organize the NAC into nine NAC 

committees that operate somewhat independently and are represented at the Advisory Council 

only by committee chairs. Prior experience indicates that potential efficiencies are gained by 

shared deliberations and "cross pollination" of information and expertise among disciplines. 

Some committees have met jointly to share their experience with each other and have brought 

forward joint observations, fmdings and recommendations. It would be beneficial to NASA to 

have committees come together to integrate efforts, hold cross-discipline meetings and explore 

systems approaches that can potentially lead to increased quality, efficiency, cost reduction, risk 

reduction, etc. that might not be apparent when working separately. Further, this would allow 

NASA leadership to efficiently communicate priorities, introduce new directions, and receive 

feedback. 

Consequences of No Action 'on the Recommendation: Without this coordination, the various 

committees may perform redundant work, offer advice that fails to recognize unintended 

consequences, or provide recommendations that are not well informed. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs and will implement this recommendation. We believe that there are benefits to 

having a meeting once per year in which the Council's nine committees meet in the same 

location. Such an approach would permit the committees to conduct discussions on cross-cutting 

topics, resulting in recommendations that can be fully vetted by a broad range ofsubject-matter 

experts across disciplines, prior to submission for Council consideration. Moreover, this 

approach would offer an opportunity for the Administrator to share his views with the committee 

members simultaneously, covering such areas as NASA's current and future programs, priorities, 

and budget outlook. 

To this end, NASA is planning the first such meeting of all nine Council committees to take 

place just before the August 3-5, 2011, Council meeting at the Ames Research Center. 

Enclosure
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00768-CR

Anthony GONZALES,

Appellants

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-05-00079-CRF

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED March 12, 2014.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
#### Jackson and Another *v.*Pittsford.

The plaintiff’s right to challenge a juror peremptorily remains open until the juror is sworn.

The party on whom the affirmative lies is entitled to begin.

Where there are several issues, and the proof of one of them lies on the plaintiff, he is to begin.

APPEAL from the *Madison*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Assumpsit on a promissory note. *Pitts-ford*was the plaintiff below. Pleas, 1. Non assumpsit; 2. Usury. Replication in denial of the second plea. Verdict for the plaintiff. Motion by the defendants for a new trial overruled; and judgment on the verdict.

The first error assigned is, that the Court incorrectly allowed the plaintiff to challenge a juror.’ The following are the facts: After the plaintiff had challenged two jurors peremptorily, and their places had been *supplied, he*said he would take the jury. Some jurors challenged by the defendants being set aside, and others put in their places, they accepted the j ury. ’ Afterwards, one of the jurors, who was in the box when the plaintiff said he would take the jury, was challenged peremptorily by the plaintiff. This challenge was objected to, but the objection was overruled. There was no error in allowing the challenge objected to. The plaintiff had a right to make it at'any time before the juror was sworn. *Beauchamp*v. *The State,*6 Blackf. *299.*— Munly v. *The State,*7 *id.*593.

The next objection is, that the plaintiff was permitted to begin. We think the Court did right. The rule of law is, that' the party on whom the affirmative lies is entitled to begin; and where there are several issues, and the proof *195of one of them lies on the plaintiff, he is to begin. *Jackson*v. *Hesketh,*2 Stark. R. 518. In the present case, one of the pleas being non assumpsit, the plaintiff had to take the first step on the trial, by producing the note, though the plea was not sworn to.

*W. March,*for the appellants.

*D. Kilgore,*for the appellee.

The defendants make one other objection, viz., that they were entitled to a new trial, the verdict being against evidence. We have examined the evidence, and think there is no error in this part of the case.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with 5 *per cent.*damages and costs.