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 Kroll Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven L. Ford, Chief
Financial Officer of Kroll Inc., 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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Kroll Inc. /s/ Steven L. Ford

Steven L. Ford
Chief Financial Officer
 Date: May 7, 2004 38
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.72 Documentation requirements for nonimmigrants.

A passport which is valid indefinitely for the return of the bearer to the country whose government issued such passport shall be deemed to have the required minimum period of validity as specified in INA 212(a)(7)(B).
### §3336. Amount of grant

#### (a) Limitation; Federal and non-Federal contributions; projects or activities eligible for assistance

A grant under section 3335 of this title shall not exceed (1) 20 per centum of the cost of the project for which the grant is made; nor (2) the Federal grant made with respect to the project under the legislation referred to in paragraph (2) of section 3338 of this title. In no case shall the total Federal contributions to the cost of such project be more than 80 per centum. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including requirements with respect to non-Federal contributions, grants under section 3335 of this title shall be eligible for inclusion (directly or through refunds or credits) as part of the financing for such projects: Provided, That projects or activities on the basis of which assistance is provided under section 3305(c) of this title shall not be eligible for assistance under section 3335 of this title.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations; availability of funds for expenditures

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under section 3335 of this title not to exceed $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and not to exceed $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968. Any amounts appropriated under this section shall remain available until expended, and any amounts authorized for any fiscal year under this section but not appropriated may be appropriated for any succeeding fiscal year commencing prior to July 1, 1970.

(Pub. L. 89–754, title II, §206, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1264; Pub. L. 90–448, title VI, §602(f), Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 532.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 3305 of this title, referred to in subsec. (a), was omitted from the Code pursuant to section 5316 of this title, which terminated the authority to make grants and loans under subchapter I of this chapter after Jan. 1, 1975.

#### Amendments

1968—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–448 permitted any amounts authorized for any fiscal year but not appropriated to be appropriated for any succeeding fiscal year commencing prior to July 1, 1970.
### §300ee–24. Funding

#### (a) Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of making allotments under section 300ee–11(a) of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated $165,000,000 for fiscal year 1989 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991.

#### (b) Availability to States

Any amounts paid to a State under section 300ee–11(a) of this title shall remain available to the State until the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the State receives such amounts.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXV, formerly title XV, §2514, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §221, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3102; renumbered title XXV, Pub. L. 101–93, §5(e)(1), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 612.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2514 of act July 1, 1944, was successively renumbered by subsequent acts, see section 238m of this title.
**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 Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, George Morris, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my 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)  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      November 19, 2008





*/s/
                George Morris*George
                MorrisChief
                Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.


Exhibit
      32.1


Page
      1 of
      1 Page
### §15483. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15483 was editorially reclassified as section 21083 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27517]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-960-1910-BJ-4489, ES-052572, Group No. 37, Missouri]


Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of filing of plat of survey; Missouri.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston 
Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was requested by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers.
    The lands we surveyed are:

Fifth Principal Meridian, Missouri,

T. 49 and 50 N., Rs. 2 and 3 E.
    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of portions of 
the township boundaries, portions of the subdivisional lines and 
portions of various U.S. Surveys and the survey of the Lock and Dam No. 
25 acquisition boundary, in Townships 49 and 50 North, Ranges 2 and 3 
East, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Missouri, and 
was accepted on November 30, 2004.
    We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It 
will be made available to the public as a matter of information.

    Dated: November 30, 2004.
Stephen D. Douglas,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 04-27517 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 62

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

#### § 62.61 Revocation.

The Department may terminate a sponsor's program designation by revocation for cause as specified in § 62.50. Such sponsor may not apply for a new designation for five (5) years following the effective date of the revocation.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County, rendered December 15, 1976, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of attempted coercion in the first degree. The defendant was indicted on October 30, 1975 for attempted rape in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, all charges involving victims under 11 years of age. He entered the plea in issue herein on July 9, 1976, on the eve of trial. On December 15, 1976 he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than four nor less than two years. On his appeal he makes three claims, all of which are without merit. Contrary to the assertions contained in defendant’s first argument, based largely upon statements taken out of context from the minutes of the sentencing hearing, it is apparent that the plea was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelli*1072gently, with a full appreciation of the consequences. The trial court carefully apprised the defendant of all possible ramifications of the plea and questioned him as to his understanding of each statement as to which there was any chance of confusion. The defendant’s present counsel argues that his client has above-average intelligence, a claim supported by the record. In addition, with prior convictions for various crimes including assaults and sexual offenses involving young girls, defendant was experienced with criminal proceedings. His attorney was experienced and took an active part in the plea and sentencing proceedings and, under all of these circumstances, it is clear that the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting defendant’s plea *(People v Friedman,*39 NY2d 463; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338). Defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is largely based upon his expressed desire to hire an attorney of his own choosing rather than the attorney assigned by the court. He failed, however, in the many months between his arraignment on January 23, 1976, and the date of his plea to secure his own attorney. The apparent reason was a lack of funds. Under such circumstances, it is well-established that a defendant is entitled to competent counsel, but not to counsel of his own choosing. "It is an age-old rule * * * that, as long as assigned counsel are men of ability and integrity, the discretion and responsibility for their selection rest with the court, to be exercised free of outside interference” *(People v Brabson,*9 NY2d 173, 180-181; see, also, *People v Pettiford,*51 AD2d 927). There is no evidence that defendant’s assigned attorney, described by the Trial Judge as one of the most competent in his county, handled this case in any way other than a competent and professional manner. In view of the defendant’s record, we are inclined to agree with the People that the sentence imposed was lenient, not harsh and excessive as claimed by the defendant. There was certainly no clear abuse of discretion so as to warrant any interference by this court *(People v Dittmar,*41 AD2d 788). Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2437 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur BL XP 2468. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. MURPHY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur BL XP 2468. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESMODUR BL XP 2468. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.70 Copolymer of methyl ethyl 

ketoxime and 

toluenediisocyanate (CAS 

No. 352462–03–4) (provided 

for in subheading 

3911.90.45) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2437 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### §300ff–1. Prohibition on use of funds

None of the funds made available under this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall be used to provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes so that such individuals may use illegal drugs.

(Pub. L. 101–381, title IV, §422, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 628.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 101–381, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 576, known as the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990, which enacted this subchapter, transferred section 300ee–6 of this title to section 300ff–48 of this title, amended sections 284a, 286, 287a, 287c–2, 289f, 290aa–3a, 299c–5, 300ff–48, and 300aaa to 300aaa–13 [now 238 to 238m] of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 201, 300x–4, 300ff–11, 300ff–46, and 300ff–80 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1990 Amendment note set out under section 201 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
#### In the Matter of Edward Hirschhorn, Deceased. Else H. Bromberger et al.; Helen Schwabach.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before August 9, 1960, with notice of argument for the September 1960 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert J. Spink, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal unanimously dismissed as moot (see *People v Johnson,*47 AD2d 639). (Appeal from judgment of Oswego County Court— attempted assault, second degree.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.
#### R. C. F. Mautone, Appellant, v. Broadview Manor, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Motion to direct restitution granted by default, with $10 costs. The plaintiff had paid to defendant Broadview Manor, Inc., the sum of $116.50 under a judgment which this court subsenuently reversed. "Pursuant to section 587 of the Civil Practice Act, said defendant is hereby directed, within 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered hereon, to make restitution of this sum to the plaintiff. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld. Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### § 204.33 A.I.D. approval of acceleration of notes.

Without the prior approval of A.I.D., the Lender or any Assignee shall not accelerate any Eligible Notes held by it on account of the happening of an Event of Default other than failure to make a payment when due on the note.
U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:08-cv-03401-EMC Document 122 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-03401-EMC Document 122 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION 

 Case No. CV 08-1190 SI 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BURNHAM BROWN

Robert M. Bodzin, State Bar No. 201327 

P.O. Box 119 

Oakland, CA 94604 

Telephone: (510) 835-6833 

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 

rbodzin@BurnhamBrown.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

[Additional Counsel Appear Below]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION 

CLAUDE BRYANT, JOSEPH BIERNACKI, 

GORDON FARMER, RHEALYN HOLLAND, 

JAMES STICKLE, ELEANOR RIGGIO, FRANK 

ACUNA, RICHARD LAMASTERS, KENNETH 

ALLEN, CRAIG FULCHER, SANFORD 

LEVINE and THOMAS THOMPSON, on behalf 

of themselves and all other employees and former 

employees similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, 

SCI FUNERAL AND CEMETERY 

PURCHASING COOPERATIVE, INC., SCI 

WESTERN MARKET SUPPORT CENTER, L.P. 

a/k/a SCI WESTERN MARKET SUPPORT 

CENTER, INC., JANE D. JONES, GWEN 

PETTEWAY, THOMAS RYAN, and CURTIS 

BRIGGS, 

 Defendants 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. CV 08-1184-SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION 

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 258 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION 

 Case No. CV 08-1190 SI 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs, who are admitted

pro hac vice: 

J. Nelson Thomas, NY Attorney No. 2579159 

Patrick J. Solomon, NY Attorney No. 2716660 

Annette Gifford, NY Attorney No. 4105870 

THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 

693 East Avenue 

Rochester, NY 14607 

Telephone: (585) 272-0540 

Facsimile: (585) 272-0574 

nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com 

Charles H. Saul, PA State Bar No. 19938 

Liberty J. Weyandt, PA State Bar No. 87654 

Kyle T. McGee, PA State Bar No. 205661 

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 

525 William Penn Place 

Suite 3300 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Telephone: (412) 281-4256 

Facsimile: (412) 642-2380 

csaul@margolisedelstein.com 

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 258 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION 

Case No. CV 08-1190 SI 

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Upon consideration of Brian M. Levine’s Motion for Substitution and good cause 

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Brian M. Levine is substituted, in his 

capacity as distributee of decedent Sanford M. Levine, as plaintiff in this action. 

Dated: 

 Honorable Susan Illston 

 United States District Court 

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 258 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 3
### §4370. Reimbursement for use of facilities

#### (a) Authority to allow outside groups or individuals to use research and test facilities; reimbursement

The Administrator is authorized to allow appropriate use of special Environmental Protection Agency research and test facilities by outside groups or individuals and to receive reimbursement or fees for costs incurred thereby when he finds this to be in the public interest. Such reimbursement or fees are to be used by the Agency to defray the costs of use by outside groups or individuals.

#### (b) Rules and regulations

The Administrator may promulgate regulations to cover such use of Agency facilities in accordance with generally accepted accounting, safety, and laboratory practices.

#### (c) Waiver of reimbursement by Administrator

When he finds it is in the public interest the Administrator may waive reimbursement or fees for outside use of Agency facilities by nonprofit private or public entities.

(Pub. L. 96–229, §5, Apr. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 328.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1980, and not as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which comprises this chapter.
Case 3:08-cv-01567-JL Document 22 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:08-cv-01567-JL Document21 Filed01/25/10 Page1 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-01567-JL Document 22 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 2 Case3:08-cv-01567-JL Document21 Filed01/25/10 Page2 of 2
§ 300.101 Individual accounts. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, all accounts held with a member by a person in his own name, and those which under these rules are deemed his individual accounts, shall be combined so as to constitute a single account of a separate customer.
( b ) An account held with a member by an agent or nominee for another person as a principal or beneficial owner shall, except as otherwise provided in these rules, be deemed to be an individual account of such principal or beneficial owner.
#### William T. BROCKL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Langhom M. BOND, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-2149.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Feb. 18, 1982.

Decided June 9, 1982.

Barbara B. Berman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant-appellant.

Barbara L. Burbach, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge, BAUER, Circuit Judge, and DAVIES,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Ronald N. Davies, United States Senior District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

RONALD N. DAVIES, Senior District Judge.

The appellee, William T. Brockl, is an air traffic controller who was removed from his position on June 16, 1970, due to unauthorized absences during a nationwide “sick-in” organized by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. His administrative challenge to his removal was given finality on November 23, 1971, when the Civil Service Commission upheld the Regional Director’s decision that the removal was proper. Shortly thereafter Brockl was informed by the FAA that controllers removed in 1970 due to unauthorized absences could apply for reemployment under certain conditions. He did so and was reinstated on May 1, 1972.

Brockl then commenced an action in the district court seeking declaratory relief and backpay for the period during which he had been terminated. The district court, holding that the removal had been arbitrary and capricious, awarded backpay of $29,-670.52 together with interest in the sum of $22,845.90. The FAA appeals only from that portion of the judgment awarding interest and the only issue is whether the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, authorizes prejudgment interest on a backpay award.

> There is a long-established deeply-imbedded principle that interest is not allowed on monetary claims against the Federal Government unless Congress (or a contract) plainly authorizes such an addition ....

*Blake v. Califano,*626 F.2d 891 (D.C.Cir. 1980). This principle has been held to apply to the Back Pay Act. *Van Winkle v. McLucas,*537 F.2d 246 (6th Cir. 1976), *cert. denied,*429 U.S. 1093, 97 S.Ct. 1105, 51 L.Ed.2d 539 (1977); *Fitzgerald v. Staats,*578 F.2d 435 (D.C.Cir.1978). We agree. Though the Fifth Circuit, in *Payne v. Panama Canal Co.,*607 F.2d 155 (1979), held that the remedial and compensatory purpose of the Act permitted the district court to exercise its discretion in awarding interest, we feel that purpose insufficient to overcome the strong contrary reasons for denying prejudgment interest in the absence of specific authorization by Congress.

*47The portion of the judgment of the District Court in awarding interest is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
**PHILIP
      M. COHEN**


**17324
      Whirley Rd.**


**Lutz,
      FL 33558**









August
      13, 2007




Board
      of
      Directors


Medical
      Media Television, Inc.


8406
      Benjamin Road, Suite C


Tampa,
      FL
      33634





Gentlemen:





Please
      consider this letter my resignation as a Chairman of the Board, President,
      and
      Chief Executive Officer of Medical Media Television, Inc. effective this date.
      My resignation was not the result of a disagreement with the Company on any
      matter relating to the Company’s operations, policies, or practices.





Sincerely,




/s/
                Philip M. CohenPhilip
                M. Cohen