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



Certification Pursuant to Section 302  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of B.H.I.T, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):




---



##### 



/s/ Paul S. DennisPaul S. DennisInterim Chief Financial Officer
### §612. Reports and intervention rights

(a) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall monitor agency compliance with this chapter and shall report at least annually thereon to the President and to the Committees on the Judiciary and Small Business of the Senate and House of Representatives.

(b) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration is authorized to appear as amicus curiae in any action brought in a court of the United States to review a rule. In any such action, the Chief Counsel is authorized to present his or her views with respect to compliance with this chapter, the adequacy of the rulemaking record with respect to small entities and the effect of the rule on small entities.

(c) A court of the United States shall grant the application of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to appear in any such action for the purposes described in subsection (b).

(Added Pub. L. 96–354, §3(a), Sept. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 1170; amended Pub. L. 104–121, title II, §243(b), Mar. 29, 1996, 110 Stat. 866.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–121, §243(b)(1), which directed substitution of "the Committees on the Judiciary and Small Business of the Senate and House of Representatives" for "the committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Select Committee on Small Business of the Senate, and the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives", was executed by making the substitution for "the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Select Committee on Small Business of the Senate, and the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–121, §243(b)(2), substituted "his or her views with respect to compliance with this chapter, the adequacy of the rulemaking record with respect to small entities and the" for "his views with respect to the".

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Small Business of Senate changed to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of Senate. See Senate Resolution No. 123, One Hundred Seventh Congress, June 29, 2001.

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–121 effective on expiration of 90 days after Mar. 29, 1996, but inapplicable to interpretative rules for which a notice of proposed rulemaking was published prior to Mar. 29, 1996, see section 245 of Pub. L. 104–121, set out as a note under section 601 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1981, see section 4 of Pub. L. 96–354, set out as a note under section 601 of this title.

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of reporting provisions in subsec. (a) of this section, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and page 191 of House Document No. 103–7.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 6-K



REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



For the Month of June 2005

GENESYS S.A.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



L'Acropole, 954-980 avenue Jean Mermoz, 34000 Montpellier, FRANCE

(Address of principal executive offices)



> Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

Form 20-FXForm 40-F

> Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper aspermitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):____

> Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper aspermitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):____

> Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the
>     information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

YesNoX

> If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-_______________.









---

On June 17, 2005, we
published an announcement in the French "Bulletin Des Annonces Legales
Obligatoires" (BALO), in accordance with French law, announcing the re-convening of
our Combined General Shareholders' Meeting (Ordinary and Extraordinary), which was
initially scheduled for June 16, 2005 and is now scheduled for June 28, 2005. The BALO
publication restated the agenda of the shareholders' meeting as well as certain
points of French law regarding the shareholders' meeting, as required by French law.



---





SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



Dated: June 17, 2005



GENESYS SA

|By:/s/ François Legros
|----------------------

Name: François Legros

Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATINO EXTRACTED FROM DIAGNOSTIC/RETRIEVAL
SYSTEMS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000028630
<NAME> DIAGNOSTIC/RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      23,069,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,594,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 16,558,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            62,698,000
<PP&E>                                      39,958,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,230,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,770,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,113,000
<BONDS>                                     35,319,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,848,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                90,770,000
<SALES>                                     25,563,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,563,000
<CGS>                                       23,382,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,382,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             978,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,514,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   590,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   924,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9900 

To modify the National Security Commission on Emergency Biotechnology. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2024 

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To modify the National Security Commission on Emergency 

Biotechnology. 

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 ‘‘BioTech Innovation 

5 and National Security Continuation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY COMMIS7 SION ON EMERGING BIOTECHNOLOGY. 

8 Section 1091 of the National Defense Authorization 

9 Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Public Law 117–81) is amend10 ed— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9900 IH

1 (1) in subsection (b)(3) by striking ‘‘the author2 ity to make such appointment or appointments shall 

3 expire, and the number of members of the Commis4 sion shall be reduced by the number equal to the 

5 number of appointments so not made’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘such appointments shall nevertheless be considered 

7 valid’’; 

8 (2) in subsection (g)(1), by inserting ‘‘and 6 

9 months’’ after ‘‘3 years’’; and 

10 (3) in subsection (r), by striking ‘‘18 months 

11 after the date on which it submits the final report 

12 required by subsection (g)’’ and inserting ‘‘on De13 cember 31, 2026’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 99.1

                                 WATERCHEF, INC.
                              1007 Glen Cove Avenue
                            Glen Head, New York 11545
                              Phone: (516) 656-0059
                               Fax: (516) 656-9095


                             CERTIFICATE 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 WaterChef, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB For the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David A. Conway, as
President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Operating Officer), herby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         2.       The information contained in the report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by
                  the Report.



                                        /s/David A. Conway
                                        ------------------
                                        David A. Conway
                                        President, Chief Executive Officer
                                        and Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Operating Officer)
                                        May 21, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7457

KENNETH WAYNE PACE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior

District Judge. (7:13-cv-00171-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: January 31, 2014 Decided: February 10, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Wayne Pace, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne Pace seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Pace has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2*


                           Section 1350 Certification


        I, Steven G. Larson, the chief financial officer of LaserCard
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certify pursuant to section
1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge:

        (i)     the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2005 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and

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

Date:  November 03, 2005

/s/ Steven G. Larson
--------------------
Steven G. Larson



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

*       The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed "filed" with
the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.


                                       39
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                               LANCER CORPORATION
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

UNITED STATES:
Lancer Capital Corporation
San Antonio, Texas

Lancer International Sales, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas

Lancer Investment Corporation
Wilmington, Delaware

Lan-Leasing, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas

Lancer Partnership, Ltd.
San Antonio, Texas

Lancer Ice Link, LLC
San Antonio, Texas

MEXICO:
Industrias Lancermex, S.A. de C.V.
Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico

Lancer de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Servicios Lancermex, S.A. de C.V.
Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

BRAZIL:
Lancer do Brasil, Industria e Comercio Ltda.
Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

ECUADOR
Ecualancer S.A.
Quito, Ecuador

EUROPE:
Lancer Europe, S.A.
Brussels, Belgium

OOO Lancer Sales Company
Moscow, Russia

AUSTRALIA:
Lancer Pacific, Pty. Ltd.
Lancer Pacific Industies, Pty. Ltd.
Beverly, South Australia, Australia

Lancer Pacific, Ltd.
Auckland, New Zealand
#### § 200.2023 Harmless error.

No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in any act done or omitted by the ALJ or by any of the parties, including Federal representatives or TRICARE contractors is ground for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing an otherwise appropriate ruling or order or act, unless refusal to take such action appears to the ALJ or the DAB inconsistent with substantial justice. The ALJ and the DAB at every stage of the proceeding will disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 13, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60478 Summary Calendar

LONNIE DONNELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WES CLEMENS; AMBER DARBY; LINDA EDWARDS; DIANE FOY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:02-CV-501-S

-------------------- Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lonnie Donnelly, Mississippi prisoner # K1304, appeals the magistrate judge's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The magistrate judge dismissed Donnelly’s claims regarding a denial of access to the courts for failure to state a constitutional claim. Donnelly has not established that he was unable to present a cognizable claim or that he was barred from seeking review of a meritorious claim as a result of the defendants’ refusal to give him his legal papers while he was inNo. 03-60478 -2- administrative segregation. See Crowder v. Sinyard , 884 F.2d 804, 811 (5th cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128 (1990); Sherrod v. State , 784 So. 2d 256, 259 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Consequently, the judgment of the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED.
#### § 942.778 Permit applications—Minimum requirements for legal, financial, compliance, and related information.

Part 778 of this chapter, *Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Legal, Financial, Compliance, and Related Information,* shall apply to any person who makes application for a permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

The following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporation's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 and is not
filed as provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                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 on Form 10-Q of Dynamics Research
Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the "Company"), for the period ended
March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:

(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; 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/ James P. Regan
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          James P. Regan
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 7, 2004

                                       49
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DANIEL FOUNTAIN, a/k/a Danny Boy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:10-cr-00777-RWT-8)

Submitted: January 27, 2017 Decided: February 6, 2017

Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Fountain, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah K. Johnston, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Fountain appeals the district court’s order denying 

his motion to reconsider the district court’s denial of his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. Because the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to consider Fountain’s motion for 

reconsideration, we affirm the denial of relief. See United 

States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding 

that district court lacks authority to grant motion to 

reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). We grant Fountain’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and we dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 1698.6 Issuance of advisory opinions.

A copy of the advisory opinion will be furnished, without charge, to the requester therefor and to the individual to whom it pertains. A copy of an advisory opinion will be furnished, without charge, to any Federal, state, or municipal governmental agency upon request.
#### § 921.800 General requirements for bonding of surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

Part 800 of this chapter, *General Requirements for Bonding of Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Under Regulatory Programs,* shall apply to all surface coal mining and reclamation operations.