alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 12.117 Procedure after examination. ( a ) *Merchandise complying with the Act.* If, upon examination or analysis of a sample from a shipment of pesticides or devices, the sample is found to be in compliance with the Act, the Administrator will notify the port director that the shipment may be released to the consignee.
( b ) *Merchandise not complying with the Act.* If, upon examination or analysis of a sample from a shipment of pesticides or devices, the sample is found to be in violation of the Act, the consignee will be notified promptly by the Administrator of the nature of the violation and be given a reasonable time, not to exceed 20 days, to submit written material or, at his option, to appear before the Administrator and introduce testimony, to show cause why the shipment should not be destroyed or refused entry. If, after consideration of all the evidence presented, it is still the opinion of the Administrator that the merchandise is in violation of the Act, the Administrator will notify the port director of this opinion and the port director will either ( 1 ) refuse delivery to the consignee, or
( 2 ) if the shipment has been released to the consignee under bond, demand redelivery of the shipment under the terms of the bond. If the merchandise is not redelivered within 30 days after the date of demand by the port director, the port director will issue a demand for liquidated damages in the full amount of the bond if it is a single entry bond, or if a continuous bond is used, the amount that would have been taken under a single entry bond. The port director will cause the destruction of any merchandise refused delivery to the consignee, or redelivered by the consignee pursuant to a demand therefor, and not exported by the consignee within 90 days after notice of such refusal of delivery or within 90 days after such redelivery, as applicable.
[T.D. 75-194, 40 FR 32322, Aug. 1, 1975, as amended by T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41168, Oct. 19, 1984; CBP Dec. 16-15, 81 FR 67143, Sept. 30, 2016]
§ 206.41 Appointment of disaster officials. ( a ) *Federal Coordinating Officer.* Upon a declaration of a major disaster or of an emergency by the President, the Administrator or Deputy Administrator shall appoint an FCO who shall initiate action immediately to assure that Federal assistance is provided in accordance with the declaration, applicable laws, regulations, and the FEMA-State Agreement.
( b ) *Disaster Recovery Manager.* The Regional Administrator shall designate a DRM to exercise all the authority of the Regional Administrator in a major disaster or an emergency.
( c ) *State Coordinating Officer.* Upon a declaration of a major disaster or of an emergency, the Governor of the affected State shall designate an SCO who shall coordinate State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government.
( d ) *Governor's Authorized Representative.* In the FEMA-State Agreement, the Governor shall designate the GAR, who shall administer Federal disaster assistance programs on behalf of the State and local governments and other grant or loan recipients. The GAR is responsible for the State compliance with the FEMA-State Agreement.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Bruce E. 

Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 486] (“Report”), filed on February 5, 2021. 

The Report recommends that the Court grant the Receiver’s First Application for Allowance and 

Payment of Professionals’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses for July 27, 2020 through

September 30, 2020 [ECF No. 438] (“Application”). See Report at 2. The Report properly 

notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s findings and the 

consequences for failing to object. Id. at 2. It also indicated that if counsel did not intend to file 

objections, they were required to file a notice advising the Court within five days of the Report—

i.e., by February 10, 2021. Id. at 3.

This Court further entered a Paperless Order reminding the parties that if they intended to 

file objections to the Report, they were to notify the Court by 5:00 P.M. EST on February 10, 2021. 

See Paperless Order [ECF No. 488]. The time for notifying the Court of an intent to file 

objections to the Report has expired and no party has filed such a notice. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 490 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2021 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must 

review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely 

objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation 

omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has 

acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been 

properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It 

does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s

factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 

those findings.”). 

Because no party indicated an intent to file an objection to the Report, the Court did not 

conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s findings. Rather, the Court has 

carefully reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [ECF No. 486] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. The Application [ECF No. 438] is GRANTED as follows:

Professional Fees $2,073,116.31

Expenses $81,902.33

TOTAL $2,155,018.64

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 10th day of February, 2021.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 490 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2021 Page 2 of 2
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-156 October 11, 2000

NRC UPDATES REPORT ON WASTE BURIAL CHARGES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued an update to its report on waste burial charges

that nuclear power plant licensees can use to make the required annual adjustment of their

decommissioning cost estimates.

Part 50 of NRC’s regulations requires nuclear power plant licensees to adjust annually the

estimated decommissioning costs of their facilities in order to ensure adequate funds are available for

decommissioning. The costs for burying waste must be included in decommissioning estimates. The

regulation references this report as the appropriate source for obtaining the adjustment factor for waste

burial costs. The update just issued provides the current waste burial costs at the Richland,

Washington, and Barnwell, South Carolina, disposal sites. It also provides costs for low-level

radioactive waste disposition using waste vendors.

Copies of the report, Revision 9 to NUREG-1307, “Report on Waste Burial Charges,” will be

available for purchase from the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC

20402-9328 (telephone: 202/512-1800) or from the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161-0002 (telephone: 1/800/553-6847 or 703/605-60000).

The publication is also available electronically at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1307/r9/index.html on the NRC’s web site and is available for

review at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. (telephone:

301/415-4737).

###
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 10, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1795 Lower Tribunal No. 20-657 A-K

________________ 

### Nicholas Blazevich, Petitioner,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction - Habeas Corpus. Nicholas Blazevich, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. Before HENDON, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Following review of the petition and the response thereto, it is ordered that said petition is hereby dismissed as improper. See Henry v. Santana, 62 So. 3d 1122, 1126 n.3 (Fla. 2011) (“The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to inquire into the legality of the petitioner’s present detention.” (quoting Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 1954))); Patterson v. Christensen, 183 So. 18, 19 (Fla. 1938) (“Habeas corpus is not the proper proceeding in which to challenge venue . . . .”); King v. State, 695 So. 2d 1299, 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[C]laims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are not cognizable in a petition for habeas corpus . . . .”).
§ 127.32 Expenses of cartage, storage, and labor. The expenses of cartage, storage, and labor for merchandise entered for warehousing shall be paid in the following order: ( a ) When such merchandise was warehoused in public stores, expenses of storage and labor shall be paid after expenses of sale (pro-rated when proceeds are insufficient to pay them fully) and any cartage charges shall be paid last.
( b ) When such merchandise was warehoused in a bonded warehouse, expenses of storage, cartage, and labor shall be paid last (pro-rated when proceeds are insufficient to pay them fully).
### §282d. Official mail matter

The Legislative Counsel may send the official mail matter of the Office as franked mail under section 3210 of title 39.

(Pub. L. 91–510, title V, §525, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1203; Pub. L. 92–51, §101, July 9, 1971, 85 Stat. 132.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1971—Pub. L. 92–51 substituted provision for Legislative Counsel to send official mail matter of the Office as franked mail under section 3210 of title 39, for former provision granting the Office the same privilege of free transmission of official mail matter as other offices of the United States Government.
KATHRYN BIRREN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., 

Defendant. _____________ / 

VERDICT FORM 

We the jury find as follows: 

1. Was Defendant ROY AL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. negligent, and was this 

negligence a legal cause of lo/ injury, or damage t6 Plaint~ff KATHRYN BIRREN? 

YES __ ___ NO ____ _ 

If your answer to Questions 1 is "NO," your verdict is for the Defendant, this ends 

your deliberations, and your foreperson should sign and date the last page of this verdict 

form. If your answer to Questions 1 is "YES," please answer Question 2. 

2. Was there negligence on the part of Plaintiff KATHRYN BIRREN that was a legal cause 

of her loss, injury, or damage? 

YES ~ NO - --

If you answered YES to Question 2, please answer questions 3. If you answered NO to 

Question 2, please skip Questions 3, and answer Questions 4, 5, and 6. 

3. State the percentage of any negligence that you charge to: 

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. 

Plaintiff, KATHRYN BIRRE 

TOT AL MUST EQUAL 100% 

\0 

~ % 

qo % 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2022 Page 1 of 2
' . Case No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis 

In determining an amount of damages, do not make any reduction because of the 

negligence, if any, of Plaintiff KATHRYN BIRREN. If you find that she was, to any extent, 

negligent, the court in entering judgment will make an appropriate reduction in the amount of 

damages awarded. 

4. What is the total amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff KATHRYN BIRRE for 

medical and hospital expenses as a result of the incident in question? 

a) In the past? $ {r;. t)Q 0 

b) In the future? $ p 

S. What is the amount of any damages for disability, disfigurement, scarring, pain and 

suffering, mental anguish, or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life experienced by Plaintiff 

KATHRYN BIRREN? 

a) In the past? 

b) In the future? 

$ ___ r--+-, h __ 

$_+ __ d 

6. What are the TOTAL DAMAGES TO Plaintiff KATHRYN BIRREN? 

(Add lind 4a, 4b, Sa, and Sb) 

SO SAY WE ALL this __ r] __ day of April, 2022. 

FORE 

2 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2022 Page 2 of 2
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-018 April 10, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NOTE TO EDITORS: NRC ISSUES REPORT ON INSPECTION TEAM’ S FINDINGS

FOR INDIAN POINT 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a report providing the findings of an NRC team

that inspected the Indian Point 2 nuclear power earlier this year. The multidisciplinary team of 14

inspectors carried out the inspection over the course of about two months, with a total of three weeks

of on-site reviews.

The inspection was conducted in response to the Buchanan, N.Y., plant’s designation as a facility

with “multiple degraded cornerstones,” or indicators of declining performance. The NRC conducted a

public exit meeting, at which the team’s preliminary findings were summarized, on March 2. The team

also responded to questions from elected officials and members of the public at that meeting.

A copy of the report is available on the NRC web page devoted to Indian Point 2 issues, at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/IP/index.html .
CERTIFICATION OF CEO
               PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Anthony Paterra as CEO of Diasense, Inc., (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
       the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report)
       fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
       15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
       or 78o(d); and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly
       presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
       and results of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Anthony Paterra
                                        Anthony Paterra, CEO

                                        January 7, 2005
ˇ ̨ ̋ ̧ ̊ ̇ ̆ ̄ ̧ ̃ ̧ ̊ ̄ ̆

 ̨ˇ ̊ ̃ ̆ ̊ˇ ̃ ̧ ̆ ̋ ̄ ̄ ̋ ̨

 ̋ ̊ ̆ ̆ˇ ̋ ̆ ̃ ̃ ̋ ̄ ̆ ̊ ̋ ̨ ̆ ̋

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̇ ̆ ̆ ̄  ̆

 ̃ ̆ ̧ ̆ ̆

 ̋ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̋ ̊ ̇ ̋ ̃ ̧ ̊ ̆ ̊ ̊ ̃ ̄ ̊

 ̨ ̧ ̃ ̧ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̨ ̆ ̆

 ̋ ̊ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̃ ̊ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̊ ̃ ̋  ̆ ̆ ̆ 

 ̨ ̆ ̄ ̊ ̄ ̆ ̆ ̋ ̨ ̊ ̆ ̃ ̃ ̋ ̨ ̄ ̧ ̆ ̨ ̧ ̋ ̊ ̆ ̇ˇ ̧ ̋ ̨ ̆ ̋ ̨

 ̆ ̋ ̃ ̧ ̋ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̃ ̊ ̧ ̆ ̊ˇ ̋ ̊ ̊ ̨ ̧ ̄

 ̧ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̋ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̧ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̃ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̧ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̃

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ 

 ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̋ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̇ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̊ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ 

 ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆

 ̧ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̆ ̋ ̋ ̋ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̋ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̧ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆



 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̃ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̃ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̧ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̆ ̋ ̋ ̋ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆
 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̧ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̧ ̆ ̨ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆  ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̋ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆

 ̆
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANT DEAN VAGNOZZI’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL RECEIVER TO DISCLOSE 

“SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPLE” 

On July 5, 2023, Defendant, Dean Vagnozzi (“Vagnozzi”), filed his Motion to Compel 

Receiver to Disclose “Settlement in Principle”, DE 1632. Defendant Vagnozzi now files this 

Notice to inform the Court that he is withdrawing said Motion. 

Respectfully submitted,

BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C. 

1524 Locust Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Telephone: 215-735-3900 

Fax: 215-735-2455 

E-mail: gbochetto@bochettoandlentz.com

By: /s/ George Bochetto 

George Bochetto, Esquire 

Pro Hac Vice 

Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1635 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 3
2 

 And

 EATON & WOLK, PL

Local Counsel for Bochetto & Lentz, P.C. 

2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 609 

 Miami, Florida 33133 

 Telephone: 305-249-1640 

 Email: wwolk@eatonwolk.com

 mcomas@eatonwolk.com 

 By: s/William G. Wolk__________ 

 WILLIAM G. WOLK

 FBN: 103527 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1635 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was electronically filed on July 6,

2023 with the CM/ECF filing portal, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of 

record. 

Respectfully submitted, this 6th day of July, 2023. 

 BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C. 

 1524 Locust Street 

 Philadelphia, PA 19102 

 Telephone: 215-735-3900 

 Fax: 215-735-2455 

By: /s/ George Bochetto 

 George Bochetto, Esquire 

 Pro Hac Vice 

E-mail: gbochetto@bochettoandlentz.com 

 Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi 

 

 And

 EATON & WOLK, PL 

Local Counsel for Bochetto & Lentz, P.C. 

2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 609 

Miami, Florida 33133 

 Telephone: 305-249-1640 

 Email: wwolk@eatonwolk.com

 mcomas@eatonwolk.com 

 By: s/William G. Wolk__________ 

 WILLIAM G. WOLK

 FBN: 103527 

 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1635 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 3 of 3
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-98-33 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Wednesday, April 29, 1998)

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $5,000 FINE AGAINST PHYSICIAN IN PUERTO RICO

OFFICIALS SAY VIOLATION IS OF SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY CONCERN

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $5,000 civil penalty

against Dr. Jose N. De Leon in Isla Verde, Puerto Rico for noncompliance with NRC

requirements during the use of radioactive strontium-90 applicators in the treatment of

eye patients.

In a letter to Dr. De Leon dated April 28, Luis A. Reyes, administrator of the NRC’s

Region II office in Atlanta, said the civil penalty was being proposed because

calculation errors used to determine proper treatment time led to misadministrations of

radiation dose to nine patients. Reyes said this was of significant regulatory concern to

the NRC because each patient received about twice as much radiation exposure to the

eye as intended, which slightly increased the possibility of future adverse

consequences such as cataracts. (Each received a dose of about 4,000 centigrays

instead of the intended dose of approximately 2,000 centigrays.)

Reyes also said in the letter that, in addition to misadministration of radiation doses

to nine patients at the doctor’s facility, the physician was responsible for 14 additional

misadministrations at a local hospital. Although the physician was an authorized user

on the hospital’s license, he had been previously informed by the hospital that

strontium-90 use was no longer permitted at the facility under the hospital’s NRC

license.

The NRC said Dr. De Leon has indicated intent to discontinue future use of

strontium-90 eye applicators and that the agency will consider withdrawing the

proposed civil penalty if disposal or transfer of the licensed material is properly done in

accordance with existing regulations.

An NRC inspector noted the violations during an inspection at the doctor’s Isla

Verde facility on December 11, 1997, and an open, predecisional enforcement

conference was held there on March 28 of this year.

#
##### 



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 The undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify that the foregoing
Annual Report of Claimsnet.com inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December
31, 2004 (the Report):  (1)
    Fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    Fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and
consolidated result of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
the Report. /s/ Laura M. Bray Laura M. Bray
Chief Financial Officer
March 16, 2005 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 as an exhibit to this Report pursuant to Item 601(b)
(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)
of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, Unites States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed
as part of this Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 61
#### J. Edwin Goldman, Respondent, v. Louis Shulsky, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Glennon and Dore, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the illegality of the contract appears on the face of the complaint.
#### Kenneth Wayne WOODFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6466.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Kenneth Wayne Woodfin, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Wayne Woodfin appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254*375(West 1994 & Supp.2001).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. *See Woodfin v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-444 (E.D.Va. Mar. 7, 2002). 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.*

*

 The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
#### § 60.7 Revisions of criteria for flood plain management regulations.

From time to time part 60 may be revised as experience is acquired under the Program and new information becomes available. Communities will be given six months from the effective date of any new regulation to revise their flood plain management regulations to comply with any such changes.