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 American Bio Medica Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Stefan
      Parker, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/
                    Stefan ParkerStefan
                    Parker
                  Interim
                    Chief Financial OfficerAugust
                    13, 2007
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

Pursuant to therequirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted),Nancy J. Baker, Chief Financial Officer of Cymer, Inc., a Nevadacorporation (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies that, to the best of herknowledge:

 

1.               The Registrant’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, to whichthis certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act;and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

**In Witness Whereof**,the undersigned has set her hand hereto as of the 2nd day of November, 2005.

 

 
| /s/ Nancy J. Baker                      |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |
| Nancy J. Baker, Chief Financial Officer |

 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Qto which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Cymer, Inc.under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
§ 1315.1 Application. ( a ) *Procurement contracts.* This part applies to contracts for the procurement of goods or services awarded by: ( 1 ) All Executive branch agencies except: ( i ) The Tennessee Valley Authority, which is subject to the Prompt Payment Act (31 U.S.C. chapter 39), but is not covered by this part; and
( ii ) Agencies specifically exempted under 5 U.S.C. 551(1); and
( 2 ) *The United States Postal Service.* The Postmaster General is responsible for issuing implementing procurement regulations, solicitation provisions, and contract clauses for the United States Postal Service.
( b ) *Vendor payments.* All Executive branch vendor payments and payments to those defined as contractors or vendors (see § 1315.2(hh)) are subject to the Prompt Payment Act with the following exceptions: ( 1 ) Contract Financing Payments, as defined in § 1315.2(h); and
( 2 ) Payments related to emergencies (as defined in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Public Law 93-288, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121 *et seq.*)); military contingency operations (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101 (a)(13)); and the release or threatened release of hazardous substances (as defined in 4 U.S.C. 9606, Section 106).
( c ) *Utility payments.* All utility payments, including payments for telephone service, are subject to the Act except those under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Where state, local or foreign authorities impose generally-applicable late payment rates for utility payments, those rates shall take precedence. In the absence of such rates, this part will apply.
( d ) *Commodity Credit Corporation payments.* Payments made pursuant to Section 4(h) of the Act of June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714b(h)) (“CCC Charter Act”) relating to the procurement of property and services, and payments to which producers on a farm are entitled under the terms of an agreement entered into under the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 *et seq.*) are subject to this part.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-040

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, March 7, 1997)

NRC ISSUES FINAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION ON

PROPOSED RECLAMATION OF URANIUM MILL IN MOAB, UTAH

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final

technical evaluation report on Atlas Corporation's proposed

reclamation plan for its uranium mill site near Moab, Utah.

The report concludes that the company's plan to dispose of

mill tailings on site meets NRC technical requirements. The NRC

will not, however, make a final determination on the

acceptability of the on-site disposal plan until the agency

completes its environmental review and issues an environmental

impact statement.

The uranium mill near Moab, which operated from 1956 until

1984, has been owned by Atlas since 1962. Uranium is no longer

processed at the site. Atlas has been in the process of cleaning

up the site for several years.

The cleanup plan proposed by Atlas involves demolishing all

structures on the site and disposing of the rubble in and

adjacent to the 7.5 million-cubic-yard tailings pile already

located there. The pile would be recontoured and covered with

earthen material and rock to control radon emissions and prevent

erosion.

NRC issued a draft version of the technical evaluation

report and a draft environmental impact statement for public

comment in January 1996. The agency held a public meeting on the

two reports in Moab on February 28 of last year.

The final technical evaluation report reflects consideration

of comments received, Atlas response to 20 issues identified in

the draft report, and additional NRC staff analysis. A copy will

be available for review at the Grand County Public Library, 25

South 100 East, Moab. Copies will also be available at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555,

and via an NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports.

NRC expects to issue the final environmental impact

statement this summer.
Filed 7/1/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 175

Garron W. Gonzalez, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

Nos. 20150050 & 20150051

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Kapsner, Justice.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, 402 First Street N.W., Mandan, ND 58554-3118, for petitioner and appellant.

Julie A. Lawyer, Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501, for respondent and appellee.

Ken R. Sorenson, Office of the Attorney General, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 125, Bismarck, ND 58505-0040, for amicus curiae North Dakota Attorney General.

Gonzalez v. State

Nos. 20150050 & 20150051

Kapsner, Justice.

[¶1]Garron Gonzalez appeals from district court orders denying his applications for post-conviction relief.  On appeal, Gonzalez argues the two-year statute of limitations to file post-conviction relief applications outlined in N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1- 01(2) violates his constitutional rights.  The State argues Gonzalez did not properly raise his constitutional issue before the district court, and the issue should not be considered on appeal.  “This Court has repeatedly held that issues not raised or considered in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and this Court will not address issues raised for the first time.”  Moe v. State, 2015 ND 93, ¶ 11, 862 N.W.2d 510.

[¶2]Gonzalez argues this Court has discretion under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3) to remand to determine the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2), even though the issue was not raised below.  Rule 35(a)(3), N.D.R.App.P., states:

The court may order a new trial of the case or of an issue or issues.  If an issue or issues have not been tried or, if tried, not determined, the court may remand the case to the district court for a determination of the issue or issues, without relinquishing jurisdiction of the appeal.

Gonzalez’s counsel overreads Rule 35.  If an issue has been raised, but not tried or decided, this Court may remand the case to the district court for a determination of the issue; however, this Court does not remand the case to the district court when the issue has not first been raised before the district court as it is contrary to our jurisprudence.  See Matter of R.A.S., 2008 ND 185, ¶ 12, 756 N.W.2d 771 (“When a party fails to raise an issue before the district court, even a constitutional issue, we generally will not address the issue on appeal.”).

[¶3]We summarily affirm the district court orders under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶4]Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
### SUBCHAPTER VI—DISTRESS SIGNALS
§ 1800.3 Filing disclosures of information evidencing wrongdoing. ( a ) *General.* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1213, OSC is authorized to provide an independent and secure channel for use by current or former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to disclose information that they reasonably believe evidences wrongdoing by a Federal agency. Within 45 days of receipt of the disclosure, OSC must determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that the information discloses a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or censorship related to scientific research or the integrity of the scientific process if the censorship will cause one of the aforementioned categories of wrongdoing. If it does, the law requires OSC to refer the information to the appropriate agency head for an investigation and a written report on the findings; and the agency head must submit the report to the Special Counsel. OSC may not disclose the identity of an individual who makes the disclosure unless the individual consents or the Special Counsel determines that the disclosure of the identity is necessary because of an imminent danger to public health or safety or imminent violation of any criminal law. The law does not authorize OSC to investigate any disclosure. ( 1 ) *Deferral policy for certain disclosures.* When OSC determines that a disclosure is being or has been investigated by an Agency, OSC will usually defer to such investigation rather than make a substantial likelihood determination.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Procedures for filing disclosures.* Current or former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment may file with OSC a disclosure of the type of information described in 5 U.S.C. 1213(a)(1). Such disclosures must be filed in writing. ( 1 ) Filers are encouraged to use the OSC complaint form, which is available online, to file a disclosure of the type of information described in 5 U.S.C. 1213(a)(1). OSC's complaint form provides more information about OSC jurisdiction and procedures for processing whistleblower disclosures. The OSC complaint form is available: ( i ) Online at: *https://osc.gov* (may be completed online or printed out and completed on paper);
( ii ) *By writing to OSC at:* U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 1730 M Street NW, Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505; or
( iii ) *By calling OSC at:* (800) 572-2249 (toll-free), or (202) 804-7004 (in the Washington, DC area).
( 2 ) Filers may use another written format to submit a disclosure to OSC, but the submission should include: ( i ) The name, mailing address, and telephone number(s) of the individual(s) making the disclosure(s);
( ii ) The department or agency, location, and organizational unit complained of; and
( iii ) A statement as to whether the filer consents to disclosure of the filer's identity by OSC to the agency involved, in connection with any OSC referral to that agency.
### §3128. Proof of death to support payment

A finding of death made by an officer or employee of the United States Government authorized by law to make the finding is sufficient proof of death to allow credit in the accounts of a Federal reserve bank or accountable official of the Department of the Treasury in a case involving the transfer, exchange, reissue, redemption, or payment of obligations of the Government, including obligations guaranteed by the Government for which the Secretary of the Treasury acts as transfer agent.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 947.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3128 | 31:757d. | Sept. 24, 1917, ch. 56, 40 Stat. 288, §23; added Apr. 3, 1945, ch. 51, §4, 59 Stat. 48. |

The words "officer or employee" are substituted for "official or agency" for clarity and consistency with other titles of the United States Code. The word "Government" is added for consistency. The words "section 1005 of Appendix to title 50" are omitted because the section was repealed by section 8(a) of the Act of Sept. 6, 1966 (Pub. L. 89–554, 80 Stat. 651). The words "or by any other" are omitted as surplus. The words "or by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Navy" are omitted because of 10:ch. 75. The word "official" is substituted for "officer" for consistency. The words "bonds and other" are omitted as surplus. The words "Secretary of the Treasury" are substituted for "Treasury Department" for accuracy and consistency.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1587
MARVIN D. TOM; MARLA J. TOM, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus JANET RENO, Attorney General; HELEN F. FAHEY,United States Attorney; MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service Headquarters; JOSEPH H. CLOONAN, Director, Philadelphia Internal Revenue Service Center; N. J. AIELLO, Chief, Collections Branch, Philadelphia Internal Revenue Service Center; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-1820-A) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin D. Tom, Marla J. Tom, Appellants Pro Se. Randolph L. Hutter, Annette Marie Wietecha, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Robert K. Coulter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's orders dismissing their complaint in which they sought $16 million in damages for the alleged wrongful disclosure of return information in a notice of levy by the Internal Revenue Service, denying their motion for reconsideration, denying their motion for recusal of the district court judge, and denying as moot their motions filed after entry of the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinions. Accordingly, we deny the Appellees' motion for the imposition of sanctions and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tom v. Reno , No. CA-96-1820-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, Mar. 4, 11, and 20, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1392

To require inspection of all cargo on commercial trucks and vessels entering 

the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2003

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. OTTER, Mr. 

WALDEN of Oregon, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. 

DOOLITTLE, and Mr. COBLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To require inspection of all cargo on commercial trucks and 

vessels entering the United States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY INSPECTION OF CARGO. 

4 (a) MANDATORY INSPECTIONS.—No cargo trans5 ported by a commercial motor vehicle may enter the 

6 United States from Canada or Mexico, and no cargo trans7 ported by vessel may be unloaded in the United States, 

8 unless an appropriate officer or employee of the Direc-
2

•HR 1392 IH 

1 torate of Border and Transportation Security or other ap2 propriate officer or employee of the United States has in3 spected the cargo to ensure that it complies with the laws 

4 of the United States. 

5 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) CARGO.—The term ‘‘cargo’’ means prop7 erty, or mail, or both. 

8 (2) COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE.—The term 

9 ‘‘commercial motor vehicle’’ means a commercial 

10 motor vehicle as defined in section 31101(1) of title 

11 49, United States Code, that is used principally to 

12 transport cargo. 

13 (3) UNITED STATES; VESSEL.—The terms 

14 ‘‘United States’’ and ‘‘vessel’’ have the meanings 

15 given those terms in section 401 of the Tariff Act 

16 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401). 

17 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

18 This Act shall take effect 6 months after the date 

19 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
**Exhibit 11****AmSurg Corp.****Earnings Per ShareFor the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2007 and 2006**The following is a reconciliation of the numerator and denominators of basic and diluted earningsper share (in thousands, except per share amounts):                           **Three Months Ended June 30,** **Six Months Ended June 30,**  **Earnings** **Shares** **Per Share** **Earnings** **Shares** **Per Share**  **(Numerator)** **(Denominator)** **Amount** **(Numerator)** **(Denominator)** **Amount**      **2007:**                        Net earnings fromcontinuingoperationsper common share(basic) $11,013   30,541  $0.36  $21,242   30,294  $0.70 Effect of dilutivesecurities options  —   544       —   501                   Net earnings fromcontinuingoperations percommon share(diluted) $11,013   31,085  $0.35  $21,242   30,795  $0.69               Net earnings percommon share(basic) $11,192   30,541  $0.37  $21,469   30,294  $0.71 Effect of dilutivesecurities options  —   544       —   501                   Net earnings percommon share(diluted) $11,192   31,085  $0.36  $21,469   30,795  $0.70               **2006:**                        Net earnings fromcontinuingoperationsper common share(basic) $10,024   29,794  $0.34  $18,686   29,744  $0.63 Effect of dilutivesecurities options  —   678       —   601                   Net earnings fromcontinuingoperations percommon share(diluted) $10,024   30,472  $0.33  $18,686   30,345  $0.62               Net earnings percommon share(basic) $10,104   29,794  $0.34  $18,829   29,744  $0.63 Effect of dilutivesecurities options  —   678       —   601                   Net earnings percommon share(diluted) $10,104   30,472  $0.33  $18,829   30,345  $0.62
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. 05-120 September 1, 2005

NRC REORGANIZING OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reorganizing its Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(NRR) in order to better position the office to address changes in the commercial nuclear power

industry as utilities move toward building new reactors.

The reorganization prepares NRR for an expected increase in new reactor licensing activity. It

will also streamline the NRR organization by realigning major work functions among a greater number

of smaller divisions and eliminating a layer of Senior Executive Service (SES) managers. In addition,

it will strengthen the NRC’s approach to risk-informed and performance-based regulation by

consolidating risk assessment activities into one division.

“These moves prepare NRR for an anticipated increase in new reactor licensing workload while

ensuring current reactors continue to operate safely,” said NRR Director Jim Dyer.

 The reorganization is more fully described in SECY-05-0146, “Proposed Reorganization of the

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,” which will be available on the NRC’s Web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/recent/2005/ .

Selections for the SES management positions are currently in progress and will be announced

separately before the planned implementation date of Oct. 30, 2005.

###
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-820

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. III-03-048 July 11, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $5,500 FINE AGAINST AN OHIO INSPECTION COMPANY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $5,500 fine against Testmaster

Inspection Company, Inc., of Perrysburg, Ohio for violations of NRC safety requirements in its

radiography work.

Radiography is a non-destructive testing method which uses a sealed radiation source to

make x-ray like images of heavy metal objects, like pumps, valves and pipes.

During an investigation conducted between June, 2002, and March, 2003, the NRC’s

Office of Investigations found that a radiographer employed by the company deliberately failed

to perform required surveys of the radiographic exposure device following each exposure, in

violation of NRC requirements. A survey of a radiographic exposure device must be performed

after every exposure to determine whether the sealed radiation source has returned to the proper

shielded position.

The investigation looked into allegations of employment discrimination by the company

in connection with NRC-licensed activities. The results of this investigation did not substantiate

those allegations, but uncovered that a radiographer and a radiographer’s assistant performing

radiography in Huntington, Indiana, on October 24-25, 2000, continued using the radiography

device after realizing that the instrument they were using to survey the device operated

intermittently. 

Even though this violation did not result in overexposure to members of the public or the

radiographers, it increased the potential for unnecessary radiation exposure.
- 2 -

The individual contributing to the violation no longer works for the company and the

company provided other employees with additional training on required procedures for using

radiography equipment.

The company has 30 days from receipt of the letter to either pay the civil penalty or to

challenge the proposed fine. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff,

the company may request a hearing.

The NRC’s notice of violation and its enclosures can be viewed at the NRC’s we site:

http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html#materials.

###