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 The Dewey Electronics
Corporation (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer of the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as adopted pursuant
to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Corporation.

/s/ Stephen P. Krill
Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer
Date:  November 12, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Dewey Electronics Corporation and will be retained
by The Dewey Electronics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dionics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Liu Shuzong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), 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.





Dated: August 14, 2012








/s/ Liu Shuzong


Liu Shuzong


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)





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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9596 

To amend title 41, United States Code, and title 10, United States Code, 

to provide best value through the multiple award schedule program, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 

Mr. DONALDS (for himself, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, and Ms. 

BOEBERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the Committee 

on Armed Services, 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 amend title 41, United States Code, and title 10, United 

States Code, to provide best value through the multiple 

award schedule program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Value Over Cost Act 

5 of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9596 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVIDING BEST VALUE THROUGH THE MULTIPLE 

2 AWARD SCHEDULE PROGRAM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 152(3)(B) of title 41, 

4 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(B) orders and contracts under those pro6 cedures result in— 

7 ‘‘(i) the lowest overall cost alternative; 

8 or 

9 ‘‘(ii) in the case that the Adminis10 trator of General Services determines that 

11 obtaining best value (as described under 

12 section 15.101 of the Federal Acquisition 

13 Regulation) is necessary to promote the 

14 best interests of the Federal Government, 

15 obtaining the best value to meet the needs 

16 of the Federal Government.’’. 

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

18 3012(3)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 

19 to read as follows: 

20 ‘‘(B) orders and contracts under those pro21 cedures result in— 

22 ‘‘(i) the lowest overall cost alternative; 

23 or 

24 ‘‘(ii) in the case that the Adminis25 trator of General Services determines that 

26 obtaining best value (as described under 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 9596 IH

1 section 15.101 of the Federal Acquisition 

2 Regulation) is necessary to promote the 

3 best interests of the Federal Government, 

4 obtaining the best value to meet the needs 

5 of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                            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 Annual Report of RADA Electronic Industries Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Shiri Lazarovich, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Shiri Lazarovich *
--------------------
Shiri Lazarovich
Chief Financial Officer
March 27, 2008

     * The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at
the Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
```
#### § 585.700 What requirements must I include in my SAP, COP, or GAP regarding air quality?

(a) You must comply with the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 55, according to the following table.

| If your project is located . . . | You must . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) In the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5° west longitude (western Gulf of Mexico) or offshore of the North Slope Borough of Alaska | Include in your plan any information required for BOEM to make the appropriate air quality determinations for your project. |
| (2) Anywhere else on the OCS | Follow the appropriate implementing regulations as promulgated by the EPA under 40 CFR part 55. |

(b) For air quality modeling that you perform in support of the activities proposed in your plan, you should contact the appropriate regulatory agency to establish a modeling protocol to ensure that the agency's needs are met and that the meteorological files used are acceptable before initiating the modeling work. In the western Gulf of Mexico (west of 87.5° west longitude) and offshore of the North Slope Borough of Alaska, you must submit to BOEM three copies of the modeling report and three sets of digital files as supporting information. The digital files must contain the formatted meteorological files used in the modeling runs, the model input file, and the model output file.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40261 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHNNY RAY HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (USDC No. 6:95-CR-36-15)

- - - - - - - - - - October 7, 1997 Before SMITH, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Co urt-appointed counsel for Johnny Ray Haynes has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Our independent review of the brie f, the record, and Haynes’
response discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities he rein and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED.
#### §§ 585.240-585.299 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jerome Goldsmith, Respondent-Appellant, v. Terminal System, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by employer and carrier from an award of disability compensation. Appellants challenge the method used by the hoard in determining claimant’s average weekly wage. Claimant was employed regularly on a full-time job as a delicatessen clerk. As a part-time job on every Sunday he.drove a taxi. He sustained an injury in the latter employment. The board has computed his weekly wage pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and arrived at an average weekly wage of $69.26 with a weekly compensation rate of $46.17, which is higher than his actual weekly compensation as a taxi driver. This is clearly a ease of dual and dissimilar employment, in fact it is conceded. Under the circumstances the board was justified in using the method authorized by subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. *(Matter of Stallone*v. *Liebmann Breweries,*12 A D 2d 716, affd. 10 N Y 2d 907; *Matter of Ednie*v. *Five Star Beverage Co.,*16 A D 2d 845; *Matter of Marlin*v. *Y N Cab Corp.,*17 A D 2d 876.) Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J.: I concur on the authority of *Matter of Stallone*v. *Liebmann Breweries*(10 N Y 2d 907).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             220
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,379
<ALLOWANCES>                                       263
<INVENTORY>                                     10,140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,392
<PP&E>                                          54,199
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,271
<BONDS>                                          4,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,167
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,526
<SALES>                                         42,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,728
<CGS>                                           32,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (69)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (102)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (102)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
```

[114th Congress Public Law 283]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 1446]]

Public Law 114-283
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 Designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
1221 State Street, Suite 12, Santa Barbara, California, as the ``Special 
   Warfare Operator Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Louis `Lou' J. 
Langlais Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 16, 2016 -  [H.R. 3218]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPECIAL WARFARE OPERATOR MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER 
                              (SEAL) LOUIS ``LOU'' J. LANGLAIS 
                              POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1221 State Street, Suite 12, Santa Barbara, California, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Special Warfare Operator Master Chief 
Petty Officer (SEAL) Louis `Lou' J. Langlais Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Special 
Warfare Operator Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Louis `Lou' J. 
Langlais Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 16, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3218:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            May 23, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 5, considered and passed Senate; passage vitiated.
            Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
<S>                                       <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1998          JUL-10-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS                OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1998          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1998          DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1                   1
<CASH>                                    83,101             535,651
<SECURITIES>                             496,060             549,281
<RECEIVABLES>                            112,764             112,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         691,925           1,937,240
<PP&E>                                         0              45,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           774,506           2,149,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    239,129             447,992
<BONDS>                                        0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                   0
<COMMON>                              20,360,346          20,360,346
<OTHER-SE>                           (19,824,969)        (18,659,255)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             535,377           1,701,091
<SALES>                                        0                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          36,030             107,837
<CGS>                                          0                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         382,578             919,934
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         450,000                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0              24,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (1,165,714)         (1,224,570)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (1,158,740)           (494,648)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (6,974)           (729,922)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                   0
<CHANGES>                                      0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          (1,165,714)         (1,224,570)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.057)              (.039)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.057)              (.097)

</TABLE>
### NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 00 520 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ANTOINE BENSON , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 274 th District Court of Hays County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria Appellant, Antoine Benson , filed a notice of appeal on September 12, 2019 from cause number CR

- 17

- 0907

- C in the 347th District Court of Hays County, Texas. 1 The

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001

.2 notice of appeal also references trial court cause number CR

- 18

- 1279

- C

. 2 Our review of the documents before the Court shows the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss cause number CR

- 17

- 0907

- C on August 29, 2019. On October 22, 2019 , the Cler k of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that there is no final appealable judgment and requested correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to the Court ’ s directive. A defendan t ’ s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the trial court enters an appealable order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App

. — Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that there is no conviction to be appealed and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b). D elivered and filed the 21st day of November, 2019.

2 Trial court cause number CR

- 18

- 1279

- C is before th is Court in cause number 13

- 19

- 00519

- CR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial information.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000027673
<NAME> JOHNDEERECAPITALCORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,320
<ALLOWANCES>                                        86
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                              25
<DEPRECIATION>                                      14
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          1,965
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           113
<OTHER-SE>                                         743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,225
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   412
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       49
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    25
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     98
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 64
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        64
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Company                                                  State of Organization
-------                                                  ---------------------
IMPACT Center of Albany, LLC                                   Tennessee
IMPACT Center of Bayonne, LLC                                 New Jersey
IMPACT Center of Billings, LLC                                  Montana
IMPACT Center of Fort Smith, LLC                               Tennessee
IMPACT Center of Glendale, LLC                                 Tennessee
IMPACT Center of Mobile, LLC                                   Tennessee
IMPACT Center of Mt. Diablo, LLC                               Tennessee
IMPACT Center of Northridge, LLC                               Tennessee
IMPACT Center of St. Johns, LLC                                Tennessee
IMPACT Center of Tri-City Medical Center, LLC                  Tennessee
IMPACT Center of Washington, D.C., LLC                         Tennessee
Response Oncology of Fort Lauderdale, Inc.                      Florida
Response Oncology of Tamarac, Inc.                              Florida
Response Oncology Management of South Florida, Inc.            Tennessee
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-10-00072-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: BISHOP LIFTING PRODUCTS, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

and Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

1

Relator, Bishop Lifting Products, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a

motion for emergency temporary relief in the above cause on February 18, 2010. The

Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and motion

for emergency temporary relief, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the motion for emergency temporary relief and the

petition for writ of mandamus are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

19th day of February, 2010.