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



EXHIBIT 32.2 (TCS TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS LOGO) Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Thomas M. Brandt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The
Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.Date: April 11, 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.
#### Clara Rothman, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jacob Rothman, Deceased, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff’s decedent as a consequence of being struck by a trolley car owned and operated by the defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff, entered on the verdict of a jury, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The examination before the Comptroller, pursuant to section 93d-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, was properly received in evidence where the'claimant died before the trial of his action. (5 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 1402; 2 Chamberlayne, Modem Law of Evidence, § 1660; *Jackson ex dem. Potter*v. *Bailey,*2 Johns. 17; *Gox*v. *Trustees of Pearce,*7 Johns. 298; *Boschi*V. *City of New York,*187 Mise. 875, 877.) Present— Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Plan, 2000 Stock Plan and 2000 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan of Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc. of our report dated February
23, 2001, except for the second paragraph of Note 6, as to which the date is
March 8, 2001, with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Applied
Molecular Evolution, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2000.




                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Diego, California
March 13, 2001
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with this Quarterly Report of Mortgagebrokers.com Holdings, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-QSB for the period
      ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alex Haditaghi, Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
      knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.  Such
      amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
      2006, 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 such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
      the period ending June 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Mortgagebrokers.com Holdings, Inc.







Dated:
                August 17, 2007





**MORTGAGEBROKERS.COM
      HOLDINGS, INC.**


By: */s/
        Alex Haditaghi*  President,
        Chief Executive Officer


Chief
      Financial Officer and


Chairman
      of Board of Directors
EXHIBIT 10.87
                                                                   -------------

                      PERFORMANCE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                               427 RIVERVIEW PLAZA
                                TRENTON, NJ 08611
                            TELEPHONE: (609) 656-0800
                            FACSIMILE: (609) 656-0869


Dear Holders of 2006 G Promissory Notes dated December 27, 2006, January 11,
2007 and January 16, 2007:

     The Company is requesting your consent to an amendment of the maturity date
of the above-referenced outstanding promissory note issued by the Company and
held by you which has an amended maturity date of July 15, 2007 (the "Current
Maturity Date") to a new maturity date of November 1, 2007 (the "New Maturity
Date") and waiver of any event of default relating to the non-payment of such
note as of July 15, 2007 (the "Waiver").

     Toward that end, we ask that you complete, sign and return this letter as
soon as possible.

     Please take a moment to sign and return your consent by facsimile to
609-656-0869 or by mail in the enclosed envelope.


As of July 15, 2007                         Very truly yours,

                                            /s/ Dominique Prunetti Miller

                                            Dominique Prunetti Miller
                                            Secretary


The New Maturity Date and Waiver is accepted and agreed by the undersigned
noteholder:


By:________________________________
    Name:
    Date:
Kyrgyzstan at a Glance

----

**October 1998**
Population:       4.67 million
### §544. Validity of transfer instruments

A deed, bill of sale, lease, or other instrument executed by or on behalf of an executive agency purporting to transfer title or other interest in surplus property under this chapter is conclusive evidence of compliance with the provisions of this chapter concerning title or other interest of a bona fide grantee or transferee for value and without notice of lack of compliance.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1087.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 544 | 40:484(d). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title II, §203(d), 63 Stat. 385. |

Section
#### Anna Barillas, Respondent, v Javier Rivera et al., Respondents. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Nonparty Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 803]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated July 22, 2005, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated January 21, 2005, granting the plaintiffs cross motion to compel it to defend the defendant Roy W. Luck in the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, upon, in effect, reargument, the cross motion is denied, and so much of the order dated January 21, 2005 as granted the plaintiffs cross motion to compel the nonparty to defend the defendant Roy W. Luck in the action is vacated.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was a “qualified” person entitled to benefits from the nonparty Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (hereinafter MVAIC) (Insurance Law § 5202 [b]; *see*Insurance Law § 5208 [a] [1]; *Matter of Rice v Allstate Ins. Co.,*32 NY2d 6, 10 [1973]; *Kilpatrick v Utica Ave. Auto Sales, 270*AD2d 233 [2000]; *Matter of Kenyon,*105 AD2d 530 [1984]).

Accordingly, upon, in effect, reargument, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs cross motion to compel MVAIC to appear on behalf of and defend the defendant Roy W Luck in the action. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of Good Buddy's Coffee Express, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dated indicated below, hereby certify pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
that to his knowledge:

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.

September 29, 2005



/s/ Scott Massey
------------------------------------
Scott Massey
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Sperry Gyroscope Company, Division of the Sperry Corporation, Appellant, and Engineers’ Association et al., Respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The sole relief asked for in appellant’s, emplojrer’s, petition is for an order staying arbitration demanded by respondents, representing employees.

The dispute sought to be arbitrated relates to appellant’s discharge of an employee, one Joseph Toleiss, engaged in a project classified as confidential fey the armed forces of the United States.

Since decision by the learned Special Term denying the employer’s petition permanently to stay the arbitration, the Department of Defense of the United States has formally notified the employer that access by this employee to work and information classified as secret and confidential “would be inimical to the best interests of the United States for security reasons ” and the Army-Navy-Air Force Personnel Security Board directed that consent for the specified employee’s employment in such classified work should “ be denied ”. On argument before this court, by stipulation, the authenticity of the letter from the Department of Defense dated October 5, 1951, notifying the employer as above indicated, was conceded and the letter was added to the record.

In the light of the facts thus presented, it is clear that the employer's petition to stay the arbitration should be granted since on the facts now disclosed concerning employment of this particular employee in work classified *631as confidential there is nothing further to arbitrate. The guided missile project on which this employee was working concededly was classified by the armed forces as confidential; for the security of the United States this employee never should have access to such confidential and secret information, his discharge was justified and under the terms of the contract is not arbitrable.

The court will not decide academic questions or attempt to interpret the meaning of the contract apart from a specific and existing state of facts to which such meaning is to be applied. The state of facts presented at Special Term no longer exists.

In the light of the facts presented at the time this case was argued and submitted, the order appealed from denying the stay of arbitration should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-appellant, and a permanent stay granted.

Settle order.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and motion for stay granted. Settle order on notice.
§ 1025.12 Answer. ( a ) *Time for filing.* A respondent shall have twenty (20) days after service of a complaint to file an answer.
( b ) *Contents of answer.* The answer shall contain the following: ( 1 ) A specific admission or denial of each allegation in the complaint. If a respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, the respondent shall so state. Such statement shall have the effect of a denial. Allegations that are not denied shall be deemed to have been admitted.
( 2 ) A concise statement of the factual or legal defenses to each allegation of the complaint.
( c ) *Default.* Failure of a respondent to file an answer within the time provided, unless extended, shall constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations in the complaint, and the Presiding Officer may make such findings of fact and conclusions of law as are just and reasonable under the circumstances.
#### Daniel Fontana et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Champion Mortgage Co., Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

[819 NYS2d 472]

In a putative class action, inter alia, alleging violation of Real Property Law § 274-a, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sgroi, J.), dated February 1, 2005, which denied their motion for leave to amend the complaint to add causes of action alleging breach of contract and violation of General Business Law § 349 (h), and the defendant cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed on the ground that the defendant is not aggrieved by the order *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The mortgage note at issue provides, in pertinent part, that, “[i]nterest will be charged on the unpaid principal until the full amount of the principal has been paid.” According the language of that provision its “fair and reasonable meaning” *(Sutton v East Riv. Sav. Bank,*55 NY2d 550, 555 [1982]; *see Albanese v Consolidated Rail Corp.,*245 AD2d 475, 476 [1997]), the *454defendant’s calculation of interest properly included the date it received the payoff check, and thus the defendant did not breach the terms of the mortgage note. Accordingly, the proposed breach of contract cause of action was “palpably insufficient as a matter of law” *(Leszczynski v Kelly & McGlynn,*281 AD2d 519, 520 [2001]; *see Gannett Suburban Newspapers v El-Kam Realty Co.,*306 AD2d 314 [2003]). Further, because the bank’s interest calculation conformed to the terms of the mortgage note, the proposed cause of action alleging a violation of General Business Law § 349 was also devoid of merit *(see Randazzo v Gerber Life Ins. Co.,*3 AD3d 485 [2004]; *Leszczynski v Kelly & McGlynn, supra).*

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
### Part IV—National Service Programs Clearinghouses; Volunteer Generation Fund
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3396 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3396

    To abolish the Office of Polar Programs of the National Science 
                  Foundation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 4, 2011

Mr. Walsh of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Appropriations, 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 abolish the Office of Polar Programs of the National Science 
                  Foundation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. OFFICE OF POLAR PROGRAMS.

    The Office of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation is 
abolished, and any unobligated funds appropriated for the activities of 
such office are rescinded and shall be returned to the Treasury to 
reduce the Federal deficit.
                                 <all>
```
### §20703. Purposes

The purposes of the corporation are as provided in the articles of incorporation and include—

(1) the advancement of the humanistic studies in all fields of learning; and

(2) the maintenance and strengthening of relations among the national societies devoted to those studies.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1289.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20703 | 36:1903. | June 1, 1982, Pub. L. 97–192, §3, 96 Stat. 109. |

Section

The word "objects" is omitted as included in "purposes". The words "and the corporation shall function as authorized by the laws of the State or States where it is incorporated" are omitted as unnecessary.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

# AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

# ACTION:

Notice of intent to enter into an enhanced-use lease. 

# SUMMARY:

The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to enter into an enhanced-use lease of approximately 3.8 acres known as VA's Lakeside property in Chicago, Illinois (“Lakeside”). The Department proposes to enter into a long-term (up to 75 years) lease with a competitively selected lessee that would bear full financial and legal responsibility to redevelop the property into a modern health care campus, at no cost to VA. VA would use the consideration from the proposed lease to improve health care services and facilities for veterans. Under other terms of the proposed lease, VA could continue to use the hospital property to provide health care and services to veterans until December 31, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian A. McDaniel, Office of Asset Enterprise Management (004B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-9492. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

38 U.S.C. 8161*et seq.*, specifically provides that the Secretary may enter into an enhanced-use lease if he determines that the implementation of a business plan proposed by the Under Secretary for Health for applying the consideration under such a lease to the provision of medical care and services would result in a demonstrable improvement of services to eligible veterans in the geographic service-delivery area within which the property is located. This project meets this requirement.                 

Anthony J. Principi, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 04-25915 Filed 11-22-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
No: 14-015 March 6, 2014

CONTACT: Ivonne Couret, 301-415-8200 

NRC Seeks Public Comment on Draft Strategic Plan 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comments on its draft Strategic Plan, 

covering Fiscal Year 2014-2018. The draft provides a blueprint for the agency to plan, implement and 

monitor work needed to achieve the NRC’s mission for the next four years.

The draft plan describes the agency’s mission and its two strategic goals, which although 

slightly reworded for clarity and readability, remain fundamentally unchanged from the current plan. 

The NRC’s mission is to license and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of radioactive materials to 

protect the public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the 

environment. The two strategic goals are: to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials and to ensure 

the secure use of radioactive materials.

The draft plan includes a new vision statement that reflects how the agency operates using 

the principles of a good regulator. The NRC’s new vision is: A trusted, independent, transparent, and 

effective nuclear regulator. The draft also includes new strategic objectives that describe, more 

specifically, the results needed to achieve the agency’s strategic goals.

Strategies to meet each of these objectives are described in the draft plan and reflect how the 

agency will respond to meet new challenges affecting nuclear regulations, such as processing license 

applications involving new technologies such as small modular reactors and continuing implementation 

of enhancements to improve reactor safety based on insight from the 2011 nuclear accident at 

Fukushima Dai-ichi.

The NRC issued its first Strategic Plan in September 1997 and is now required to update it 

every four years. The final Strategic Plan will replace the agency’s existing plan (FY 2008-2013). All 

interested individuals may submit comments on the draft Strategic Plan within 30 days of publication of 

the Federal Register Notice. The draft Strategic Plan is available on the NRC’s website.

Public comments may be submitted in two ways: Online through the federal government’s 

rulemaking website, http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID NRC-2013-0230; and by mail to 

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
### §15732. Southwest Border Regional Commission

The region of the Southwest Border Regional Commission shall consist of the following political subdivisions:

(1) Arizona.—The counties of Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma in the State of Arizona.

(2) California.—The counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura in the State of California.

(3) New mexico.—The counties of Catron, Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Sierra, and Socorro in the State of New Mexico.

(4) Texas.—The counties of Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Bexar, Brewster, Brooks, Cameron, Coke, Concho, Crane, Crockett, Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, Ector, Edwards, El Paso, Frio, Gillespie, Glasscock, Hidalgo, Hudspeth, Irion, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg, La Salle, Live Oak, Loving, Mason, Maverick, McMullen, Medina, Menard, Midland, Nueces, Pecos, Presidio, Reagan, Real, Reeves, San Patricio, Shleicher, Sutton, Starr, Sterling, Terrell, Tom Green 1 Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Webb, Willacy, Wilson, Winkler, Zapata, and Zavala in the State of Texas.

(Added Pub. L. 110–234, title XIV, §14217(a)(2), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1481, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XIV, §14217(a)(2), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2243.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the first fiscal year beginning after June 18, 2008, see section 14217(d) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 15101 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.
#### § 906.14 Burden of proof.

On issues of fact, the appellant bears the burden of proving he or she should prevail by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is the relevant evidence in the NAO case record, considered as a whole, that shows that a contested fact is more likely to be true than not true. Appellant has the obligation to obtain and present evidence to support the claims in his or her petition.