alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 Power3 Medical Products, Inc (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Marion J. McCormick, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





A signed
original 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.




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.




Dated: December
      11, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Marion J.
  McCormickMarion
      J. McCormick
              Chief
      Accounting Officer
### **CHAPTER 113—CONCRETE MASONRY PRODUCTS RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND PROMOTION**

Sec.
8701.
Declaration of policy.
8702.
Definitions.
8703.
Issuance of orders.
8704.
Required terms in orders.
8705.
Assessments.
8706.
Referenda.
8707.
Petition and review.
8708.
Enforcement.
8709.
Investigation and power to subpoena.
8710.
Suspension or termination.
8711.
Amendments to orders.
8712.
Effect on other laws.
8713.
Regulations.
8714.
Limitation on expenditures for administrative expenses.
8715.
Limitations on obligation of funds.
8716.
Study and report by the Government Accountability Office.
8717.
Study and report by the Department of Commerce.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000913497
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND IV, L.P. - SERIES 2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             180,133
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   180,133
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,492,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,333,022
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,492,585
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    18,374
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      888,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   992,162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,862,359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,862,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,862,359)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (118)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
# C_2011269EN.01001903.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 March 2011 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Robert Klinke

(Case C-125/11)

2011/C 269/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Applicant:

Defendant: Robert Klinke

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment (1) and occupation apply to national legislation on the grant of assistance to public servants in cases of illness?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16

1

---
No. 19,380.

#### J. W. Duff, etc. *v.*City and County of Denver.

(362 P. [2d] 1049)

Decided June 26, 1961.

Rehearing denied July 17, 1961.

Messrs. Caddes and Capra, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Donald E. Kelley, Mr. Earl T. Thrasher, Mr. Hans W. Johnson, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Sutton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*124We will refer to plaintiff in error as Duff and defendant in error as Denver.

Denver sought by eminent domain proceedings to acquire Duff’s privately owned land to expand its municipally owned Stapleton Airfield. Duff’s use of his land at the time of suit was generally as a private or fixed base operator for the storage and servicing of private airplanes. Denver contemplated using the land for supporting facilities such as airplane parking areas, taxiways and similar purposes, and possibly some for leasing to other base operators for operations similar to those now conducted by Duff.

Duff’s contention is that the facts presented contemplate the forcible seizure of his lands with the ultimate view of merely changing his private ownership to the private lease of a city tenant, and asserts that even with compensation such taking is invalid. He passes over the fact that his land is sought in accord with an agreement of the City and the Federal Aviation Agency to complete the planned expansion of the airfield for airport facilities as well as safety control. In other words he contends there is no public necessity for or public purpose in the taking, though the use contemplated by the city is, according to the testimony, “* * * for the installation of necessary Airport facilities, such as service roads, aircraft taxiways, airplane parking appurtenances, airplane hangars, airplane shopping facilities, and other similar appurtenances to the Airfield.”

A review of the record presented as well as consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel leads us to conclude that this case is governed by C.R.S. ’53, 5-4-1 and by our decisions in *Brodhead v. Denver*(1952, 126 Colo. 119, 247 P. (2d) 140 and *Denver v. Commissioners*(1945), 113 Colo. 150, 156 P. (2d) 101.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Doyle not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         199,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,269,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                   539,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,910,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,300,775
<PP&E>                                      21,253,534
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,734,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,332,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,518,720
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,517
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,332,117
<SALES>                                     37,190,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,402,331
<CGS>                                       28,525,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,700,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             914,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,518,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (477,971)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,040,126)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,040,126)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 1462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-206]

[[Page 1462]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Meetings of Humanities Panel

AGENCY: The National Endowment for the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of additional meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the 
following meeting of the Humanities Panel will be held at the Old Post 
Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael P. McDonald, Advisory 
Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, 
Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired 
individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained 
by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on (202) 606-8282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed meeting is for the purpose of 
advising the agency, under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, on the development of humanities 
programming and content for an upcoming Bridging Cultures Bookshelf 
project on the subject of Muslim history and cultures, including 
discussion of the early planning stages of the project and strategies 
for shaping and implementing the program. Because the proposed meeting 
will consider information that is likely to disclose information the 
premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly 
frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action, pursuant to 
authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close 
Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined 
that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection 
(c)(9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

    1. Date: January 21, 2011.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Room: 527.
    Program: This meeting will provide advice about the Bridging 
Cultures Bookshelf project on the subject of Muslim history and 
cultures.

Michael P. McDonald,
Advisory Committee, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-206 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY-LOS ANGELES;

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL; COMMUNITIES FOR A

BETTER ENVIRONMENT,

 Petitioners,

 v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

 Respondent,

THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; THE

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS,

 Respondents-Intervenors.

No. 12-70079

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Argued and Submitted October 22, 2014

Pasadena, California

FILED

JUN 09 2015

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.
page 2

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and GOULD, Circuit 

Judges.

1. EPA’s approval of the enforceable commitment wasn’t arbitrary and

capricious. EPA reasonably applied its three-part test for evaluating such

commitments in concluding that: (1) the commitment was sufficiently limited

because it addressed reductions of about 10% for three pollutants, which is roughly

within the range EPA has historically accepted; (2) the state was capable of

fulfilling the commitment based on a number of ongoing and yet-to-be-quantified

measures; and (3) the commitment’s two-and-a-half-year duration was reasonable,

given that the state had already launched many emissions-reduction measures. See

76 Fed. Reg. 41,562, 41,575–77 (July 14, 2011); 76 Fed. Reg. 69,928, 69,944–45

(Nov. 9, 2011).

2. The commitment was sufficiently enforceable because it “require[s]

California to meet specific reductions by specific deadlines,” rather than merely

setting forth “aspirational, unenforceable goals.” See Comm. for a Better Arvin v.

EPA, Nos. 11-73924, 12-71332, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 2384556, at *8 (9th Cir.

May 20, 2015). 
page 3

3. The state implementation plan doesn’t impermissibly ignore pollution in

near-highway areas because the monitoring guidelines explicitly specify that states

generally need not monitor “microscale” or “middle scale” areas, which include

“traffic corridors” and areas “along traffic corridors.” 40 C.F.R. Pt. 58, App. D,

§ 4.7.1(c)(1)–(2).

DENIED.
Very 

Useful Useful Neutral Useless 

Not 

Applicable 

16. How useful was the information you received 

during the training? 

Yes No 

17. Did you share any of the information from this training with others? 

18. Did you share any of the materials from this training with others? 

19. Have you applied any of what you learned in the training to your work? 

20. Which of the following have been barriers to applying the information/skills learned in this training to your 

current job? (Check all that apply) 

_____ Colleagues _____ Staff resources 

_____ Client needs _____ Policies and procedures 

_____ Time _____ Need for additional training 

_____ Financial resources _____ Other (specify: _____________) 

_____ Supervisor _____ No barriers 

What about the training was most useful in supporting your work responsibilities? 

How can the ATTC Network improve its training? 

Participants – Please Write Your Unique 

Personal Code Here as Follows: 

First Letter of Mother’s First Name: 

First Letter of Mother’s Maiden Name: 

First Digit of Social Security Number: 

Last Digit of Social Security Number: 

Thank you for completing our survey. 

Return your survey in the enclosed reply envelope if you received a hard copy of this survey. 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for 

completing this questionnaire. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information to 

SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The control number for this project is 0930-0216. 

Revised: 6/3/2010 Page 2 of 2 v2.1
#### § 385.1111 Conferences (Rule 1111).

Staff may direct that a conference be convened. The conference will be conducted by Staff in accordance with procedures Staff determines will most expeditiously further the purpose of the conference. A conference will be convened only after actual notice of the time, place and nature of the conference is provided to the parties. All parties may attend the conference. However, if a party wishes to present confidential information at the conference, Staff may exclude the other parties from that part of the conference when the confidential information is presented.
HELP YOUR KIDS STAY SAFE, 

BEYOND THE KITCHEN. 

Teach them to make safe choices every day.

Marijuana can be harmful for a child’s growing brain. It’s important to talk with 

your children from a young age about what marijuana is and how it can be harmful 

to their developing brain. For tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, 

visit: 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

SMA-18-5088
### §635a–6. Periodic audits of bank transactions

#### (a) In general

Within 2 years after May 30, 2012, and periodically (but not less frequently than every 4 years) thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of the loan and guarantee transactions of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to determine the compliance of the Bank with the underwriting guidelines, lending policies, due diligence procedures, and content guidelines of the Bank.

#### (b) Review of fraud controls

Not later than 4 years after December 4, 2015, and every 4 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall—

(1) review the adequacy of the design and effectiveness of the controls used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to prevent, detect, and investigate fraudulent applications for loans and guarantees and the compliance by the Bank with the controls, including by auditing a sample of Bank transactions; and

(2) submit a written report regarding the findings of the review and providing such recommendations with respect to the controls described in paragraph (1) as the Comptroller General deems appropriate to—

(A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(Pub. L. 112–122, §17, May 30, 2012, 126 Stat. 359; Pub. L. 114–94, div. E, title LI, §51003, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1763.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012, and not as part of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 which comprises this subchapter.

#### Amendments

2015—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–94 amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Comptroller General of the United States shall review the adequacy of the design and effectiveness of the controls used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to prevent, detect, and investigate fraudulent applications for loans and guarantees, including by auditing a sample of Bank transactions, and submit to the Congress a written report which contains such recommendations with respect to the controls as the Comptroller General deems appropriate."
# C_2012032EN.01002403.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — France v Commission

(Case T-488/10) (1)

1

(ERDF - Reduction of financial contribution - Community structural assistance in Martinique - Action for annulment - Public contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ - Concept of sports, recreation and leisure facilities - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)

2012/C 32/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Steiblytè, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of European Commission Decision No C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,019
<SECURITIES>                                    76,112
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,606
<INVENTORY>                                        743
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,937
<PP&E>                                          60,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,184
<SALES>                                        113,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,086
<CGS>                                           14,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               108,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,358)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       828
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,186)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,186)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>