alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF CEO
               PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Keith Keeling 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 December 31, 2005 (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/ Keith Keeling
                                        Keith Keeling, CEO

                                        February 14, 2006
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Southern District of Florida

CENTRE DE RECHERCHE 

MÉDICO DENTAIRE AM INC. 

DIGITAL SMILE DESIGN 

BY COACHMAN, DSD PLANNING CENTER, and 

DSD APPLICATIONS LLC 

DSD APPLICATIONS LLC 

A REGISTERED AGENT, INC. 

8 THE GREEN, SUITE A 

DOVER, DELAWARE 19901

John C. Carey, Esq. 

Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP 

1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 

Miami, Florida 33131

08/06/2020 0:20-cv-61596-RS s/ S.Carlson

Case 0:20-cv-61596-RS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 1 of 2 Case 0:20-cv-61596-RS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 2 of 3
Case 0:20-cv-61596-RS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      36,253,772
<SECURITIES>                                    64,504
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,380,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                   185,575
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,243,647
<PP&E>                                      13,801,947
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,243,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,963,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,842,630
<BONDS>                                      5,011,235
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,500,004
<COMMON>                                        15,221
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,594,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,963,121
<SALES>                                      5,621,635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,621,635
<CGS>                                        4,945,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,945,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (112,999)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             242,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                131,582
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            131,582
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   131,582
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)
        

</TABLE>
§ 113.69 Production of bills of lading bond conditions. A bond to produce a bill of lading must contain the conditions listed in this section and must be a single transaction bond. Production of Bill of Lading Bond Conditions If the principal obtains release of any merchandise before filing a valid bill of lading on that merchandise with CBP, the obligors (principal and surety, jointly and severally) agree to: ( a ) Produce timely a valid bill of lading for the merchandise; and
( b ) Relieve the United States and its employees from all liability, to indemnify the United States and its employees against loss, and defend any action brought on a claim for loss based on the release without production of a valid bill of lading.
[T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41171, Oct. 19, 1984, as amended by T.D. 88-72, 53 FR 45902, Nov. 15, 1988; CBP Dec. 15-15, 80 FR 70169, Nov. 13, 2015]
#### § 115.33 Termination of approval.

Any container, the essential features of which are changed, shall no longer be covered by the design type approval. Such a container may be made available to a Certifying Authority for inspection and individual approval in accordance with subpart D of the part. However, repairs in kind do not constitute a change of the essential features.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT III-98-19 March 20, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $55,000 FINE AGAINST U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION

FOR VIOLATIONS OF NRC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AT PORTSMOUTH, OH, PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $55,000 fine against the U. S.

Enrichment Corporation (USEC) for violations of nuclear safety requirements at its Portsmouth,

Ohio, Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

The Portsmouth facility processes uranium for use in fuel for commercial nuclear power

plants.

In notifying the company of the fine, NRC Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach said: "The

violations involve major deficiencies in the nuclear criticality safety and self-assessment

programs at the Portsmouth facility."

The nuclear criticality safety program is intended to control uranium in process and in

storage to prevent a possible chain reaction – or criticality – which could produce unexpected

energy and radiation.

"While the violations did not result in an immediate safety issue, the magnitude of the

underlying problems indicate that USEC was not effective in identifying and promptly correcting

these problems," Beach said.

"Significant NRC effort was necessary to focus USEC's corrective action processes in

order to obtain comprehensive corrective actions," he added.

NRC inspections found numerous violations of the criticality safety program at

Portsmouth, including storage of containers and equipment containing uranium without the

required spacing between them, inadequate training of personnel, ineffectual USEC inspections

and audits of the program, and failure to find and correct problems in the safe handling and

storage of uranium.

USEC has until April 20 to pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and

subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing.

#####
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-55 September 22, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC COMMISSIONER TO VISIT TWO NORTH CAROLINA

NUCLEAR FACILITIES

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Dr. Nils J. Diaz will visit Global Nuclear

Fuel’s Wilmington, N.C., fuel fabrication facility on Wednesday, September 27, and Carolina Power

& Light’s Brunswick nuclear power plant in Southport, N.C., on Thursday, September 28.

Commissioner Diaz will tour both facilities and discuss their operation with officials of the respective

companies.

During his visits, Commissioner Diaz will meet with interested reporters from 4:30 p.m. to

5:00 p.m. (EDT) on Wednesday at the Global Nuclear Fuel facility on Castle Hayne Road in

Wilmington. Media representatives should go to the site’s south gate where they will be badged and

escorted to the meeting room.

On Thursday Commissioner Diaz will meet with interested reporters from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00

p.m. (EDT) in the Technical Administration Center at CP&L’s Brunswick nuclear plant after his tour

there.

Dr. Nils J. Diaz was sworn in as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in

August 1996, after a distinguished career spanning a quarter century as an educator, research scientist,

consultant and entrepreneur in such fields as nuclear engineering, nuclear power sources in space and

medical and industrial applications of radioisotopes.

Before joining the NRC, Dr. Diaz was a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of

Florida and Director of the Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute, a national

consortium of universities and industry, which he founded. He has also consulted for the governments

of Spain, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina.

Dr. Diaz received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University

of Villanova in Cuba, and Master of Science and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Florida in

Nuclear Engineering Sciences.

#
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93018, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 134.42 Specific method may be required.

Marking merchandise by specific methods, such as die stamping, cast-in-the-mold lettering, etching, or engraving, or cloth labels may be required by the Commissioner of Customs in accordance with section 304(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304(a)). Notices of such rulings shall be published in the Federal Register and the Customs Bulletin.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:D 71/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637802
 
November 1, 2017
§ 209.11 Grant administration. ( a ) *Cost share.* We may contribute up to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. The State must ensure that non-Federal sources contribute not less than 25 percent of the total eligible costs for the grant. The State or any subgrantee cannot use funds that we provide under this Act as the non-Federal match for other Federal funds nor can the State or any subgrantee use other Federal funds as the required non-Federal match for these funds, except as provided by statute.
( b ) *Allowable costs.* A State may find guidance on allowable costs for States and subgrantees in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-87 and A-122 on Cost Principles. States may use up to 7 percent of the grant funds for management costs of the grant. The State should include management costs in its application. Subgrantees must include reasonable costs to administer the grant as a direct project cost in their budget.
( c ) *Progress reports.* The State must provide a quarterly progress report to us under 44 CFR 13.40, indicating the status and completion date for each project funded. The report will include any problems or circumstances affecting completion dates, scope of work, or project costs that may result in noncompliance with the approved grant conditions.
( d ) *Financial reports.* The State must provide a quarterly financial report to us under 44 CFR 13.41.
( e ) *SMARTLINK Drawdowns.* The State will make SMARTLINK drawdowns to reimburse or advance allowable costs to subgrantees for approved projects.
( f ) *Audit requirements.* Uniform audit requirements as set forth in 44 CFR part 13 apply to all grant assistance provided under this subpart. We may elect to conduct a Federal audit on the disaster assistance grant or on any of the subgrants.
( g ) If a mitigation measure is not completed, and there is not adequate justification for non-completion, no Federal funding will be provided for that project.
[66 FR 32669, June 15, 2001, as amended at 74 FR 15353, Apr. 3, 2009]
### SUBCHAPTER III—MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS AND WHIPS
### §32b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 32b was editorially reclassified as section 6115 of this title.
§ 350.10 Public meeting in advance of FEMA approval. ( a ) During the FEMA Regional Office review of a State plan and prior to the submission by the Regional Administrator of the evaluation of the plan and exercise to the Deputy Administrator for the National Preparedness Directorate, the FEMA Regional Administrator shall assure that there is at least one public meeting conducted in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility. The purpose of such a meeting, which may be conducted by the State or by the Regional Administrator, shall be to: ( 1 ) Acquaint the members of the public in the vicinity of each facility with the content of the State and related local plans, and with the conduct of the joint exercise which tested the plans;
( 2 ) Answer any questions about FEMA review of the plan and the exercise;
( 3 ) Receive suggestions from the public concerning improvements or changes that may be necessary; and
( 4 ) Describe to the public the way in which the plan is expected to function in the event of an actual emergency.
( b ) The Regional Administrator should assure that representatives from appropriate State and local government agencies, and the affected utility appear at such meetings to make presentations and to answer questions from the public. The public meeting should be held after the first joint (utility, State and local governments) exercise at a time mutually agreed to by State and local authorities, licensee and FEMA and NRC Regional officials. This meeting shall be noticed in the local newspaper with the largest circulation in the area, or other such media as the Regional Administrator may select, on at least two occasions, one of which is at least two weeks before the meeting takes place and the other is within a few days of the meeting date. Local radio and television stations should be notified of the scheduled meeting at least one week in advance. Representatives from NRC and other appropriate Federal agencies should also be invited to participate in these meetings. If, in the judgment of the FEMA Regional Administrator, the public meeting or meetings reveal deficiencies in the State plan and/or the joint exercise, the Regional Administrator shall inform the State of the fact together with recommendations for improvement. No FEMA approval of State and local plans and preparedness shall be made until a meeting described in this paragraph shall have been held at or near the nuclear power facility site for which the State is seeking approval.
#### § 362.1 Purpose.

This part establishes criteria for determining whether the Administrator may accept gifts, bequests, or donations of services, money or property for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), under section 9 of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7705c.
### §218a. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–74, title VI, §604, Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 599

Section, act June 25, 1938, ch. 676, §18A, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1511, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 252, related to automatic enrollment for employees of large employers.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diametrics Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Brucer Comer III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ W. Bruce Comer IIIW. Bruce Comer IIIChief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2006


A signed original of the 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.
[Exhibit 32.1]

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Med Gen, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Jack Chien,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

    (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
             13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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





                                /s/ Jack Chien
                                -----------------------
                                Jack Chien,
                                Chief Financial Officer



December 30, 2004



<PAGE>
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-13 April 8, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 708/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 708/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO HOLD CONFERENCE WITH DETROIT EDISON COMPANY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet on April

15, 1996, in Lisle, Illinois, with representatives of Detroit

Edison Company for a predecisional enforcement conference to

discuss recent inspection findings at the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power

Plant at Monroe, Michigan.

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will begin

at 1:00 p.m. (CDT). It will take place in the Third Floor

Conference Room at the NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville

Road, Lisle, Illinois.

The meeting will focus on the apparent lack of recognition

by operators and management at Fermi to consider the potential

for failure of redundant safety equipment. On February 5, one of

the pumps used to provide cooling water for a safety-related

emergency diesel generator became blocked by ice and failed to

work.

The diesel generators have two parallel systems providing

cooling water. However, plant staff did not test the pumps in

the diesel's redundant division for ice blockage until 26 hours

later. When tested, there was ice blockage and, therefore, the

diesel generator cooling system may have been inoperable. During

the period of the cooling system blockage, the plant was

operating routinely and the diesel generators were not needed.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean the NRC has determined that a violation has

occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the

purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to

point out any errors in the NRC inspection report; and to enable

the company to outline its proposed corrective action.

No civil penalties or other enforcement decisions will be

made at this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior

NRC officials at a later time.
####
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50393 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISAAC CHARLES HUGHES, a/k/a Ike Hughes, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-90-CR-79

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1996 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Isaac Charles Hughes, federal prisoner #52612-080, filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), arguing that he was eligible for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 484 to the sentencing guidelines. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court, in its discretion, to reduce a defendant's sentence when the guidelineNo. 96-50393 - 2 - range applicable to the defendant has been lowered by a

retroactive amendment, such as Amendment 484. United States v. Towe , 26 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 1994). In denying the motion, the district court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need for the sentence imposed - to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (2). Hughes has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion. United States v. Pardue , 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995). AFFIRMED.