alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.2




STATMON
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19 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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey P. Talbot, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Geoffrey P. TalbotGeoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      27, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 4.8(c)

                 UNANIMOUS CONSENT RESOLUTON OF THE DIRECTORS OF
                         SHURFLO PUMP MANUFACTURING CO.


The undersigned, being all of the members of the Board of Directors of SHURflo
Pump Manufacturing Co., a California Corporation (the "Company"), hereby consent
to the following actions WITHOUT A FORMAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, or
notice thereof:

     WHEREAS, this Company maintains the SHURflo 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(hereinafter referred to as the "401(k) Plan") for the exclusive benefit of
participating employees and their beneficiaries; and

     WHEREAS, this Board deems it desirable to amend the 401(k) Plan to permit
employees to begin unmatched pre-tax employee contributions on the next plan
entry date after their date of hire but to retain the existing six month and
1000 hour eligibility requirements for purposes of receiving Company matching
contributions;

     NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED, effective December 31, 1999, Section 2.01 of the
401(k) Plan be and it hereby is amended in the following respects:

     1. Section 2.01 is amended to read as follows:

          2.01 ELIGIBILITY. Eligibility conditions. To become a participant in
          the Plan, an Employee must satisfy the following eligibility
          conditions: (b) Service requirement. (3) One Hour of Service.

Dated this 14th day of December, 1999


                                            /s/ GEORGE E. WARDEBERG
                                            ---------------------------
                                            George E. Wardeberg

                                            /s/ THOMAS F. SCHRADER
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Thomas F. Schrader

                                            /s/ JOSEPH P. WENZLER
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Joseph P. Wenzler

                                            /s/ J. RUSSELL PHILLIPS
                                            ---------------------------
                                            J. Russell Phillips

                                            /s/ JOHN W. CASEY
                                            ---------------------------
                                            John W. Casey
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-5814

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM247AD

A320-53-1281, R01 --- 12/1/14

A320-53-1281 --- 7/29/14

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
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 Synthetic Blood International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Nicora, President and 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) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  | 
|----------------- | 
|December 18, 2003 | 
|                  | 
|                  |
22.1012-1 Prevailing wage determinations. ( a ) ( 1 ) The Wage and Hour Administrator may issue revisions to prevailing wage determinations periodically. The need for inclusion of a revised prevailing wage determination in a solicitation, contract or contract modification (see 22.1007) is determined by the date of receipt of the revised prevailing wage determination by the contracting agency. (Note the distinction between receipt by the agency and receipt by the contracting officer which may occur later.) ( i ) For purposes of using Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov*, the time of receipt by the contracting agency shall be the first day of publication of the revised prevailing wage determination on the website.
( ii ) For purposes of using the e98 process, the time of receipt by the contracting agency shall be the date the agency receives actual notice of a new or revised prevailing wage determination from the Department of Labor as an e98 response.
( 2 ) In selecting a prevailing wage determination from the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website for use in a solicitation or other contract action, the contracting officer shall monitor the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website to determine whether the applicable wage determination has been revised. Revisions published on the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website or otherwise communicated to the contracting officer within the timeframes prescribed at 22.1012-1(b) and (c) are effective and must be included in the resulting contract. Monitoring can be accomplished by use of the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website's “Alert Service”.
( b ) The following shall apply when contracting by sealed bidding: a revised prevailing wage determination shall not be effective if it is received by the contracting agency less than 10 days before the opening of bids, and the contracting officer finds that there is not reasonable time to incorporate the revision in the solicitation.
( c ) For contractual actions other than sealed bidding, a revised prevailing wage determination received by the contracting agency after award of a new contract or a modification as specified in 22.1007(b) shall not be effective provided that the start of performance is within 30 days of the award or the specified modification. If the contract does not specify a start of performance date which is within 30 days of the award or the specified modification, and if contract performance does not commence within 30 days of the award or the specified modification, any revision received by the contracting agency not less than 10 days before commencement of the work shall be effective.
( d ) If the contracting officer has submitted an e98 to the Department of Labor requesting a prevailing wage determination and has not received a response within 10 days, the contracting officer shall contact the Wage and Hour Division by telephone to determine when the wage determination can be expected. (The telephone number is provided on the e98 website.)
[71 FR 36934, June 28, 2006, as amended at 86 FR 71325, Dec. 15, 2021]
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________
No. 02

- 23

- 00442

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021

- 004523

- 1

Before Walker, J; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### C AROL 

### J EAN 

### W OMACK 

### , Appellant

V



### .

E DWARDS 

### Z UBIZARRRETA 

### P ARTNERSHIP 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND J UDGMENT

On January 4, 2024, and January 29, 2024, we notified A ppellant, in accordance

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless

A ppellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant ha s

not done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because A ppellant ha s not complied with a procedural requirement and the

Texas Supreme Cou rt’s order of August 28, 2015, 1 we dismiss the appeal. 2 See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all c osts of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 22, 2024

1 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 1 5

- 9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).

2 The style of this appeal in this court reflects Appellee ’ s name as “ Edwards Zubizarr reta Partnership ” because that is how Appellant presented Appellee ’ s name in her notice of appeal. How ever, th e trial court c lerk ’ s record indicates that Appellee ’ s name may be “ Edwards Zubizarr eta Partnership. ”
209.570-2 Policy. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 10 U.S.C. 4292 prohibits any entity performing lead system integrator functions in the acquisition of a major system by DoD from having any direct financial interest in the development or construction of any individual system or element of any system of systems.
( b ) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply if— ( 1 ) The Secretary of Defense certifies to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that— ( i ) The entity was selected by DoD as a contractor to develop or construct the system or element concerned through the use of competitive procedures; and
( ii ) DoD took appropriate steps to prevent any organizational conflict of interest in the selection process; or
( 2 ) The entity was selected by a subcontractor to serve as a lower-tier subcontractor, through a process over which the entity exercised no control.
( c ) In accordance with section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 4292 note), DoD may award a new contract for lead system integrator functions in the acquisition of a major system only if— ( 1 ) The major system has not yet proceeded beyond low-rate initial production; or
( 2 ) The Secretary of Defense determines in writing that it would not be practicable to carry out the acquisition without continuing to use a contractor to perform lead system integrator functions and that doing so is in the best interest of DoD. The authority to make this determination may not be delegated below the level of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. Also, see 209.570-3(b).
( d ) Effective October 1, 2010, DoD is prohibited from awarding a new contract for lead system integrator functions in the acquisition of a major system to any entity that was not performing lead system integrator functions in the acquisition of the major system prior to January 28, 2008.
[73 FR 1824, Jan. 10, 2008, as amended at 74 FR 34268, July 15, 2009; 87 FR 76991, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 73236, Oct. 25, 2023]
#### 1825.1103 Other provisions and clauses.
Order entered January 16 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01084
- CR
ANDRE DJU NA HUBERT, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 60671
- M 

### O RDER The Reporter’s Record contains a CD ROM purporting to contain State’s Exhibit 25, th e police interview of Andre Dju na Hubert, and Defense’s Exhibit 1, the police interview of James Alexander McCoy. However, the CD ROM contained in the Reporter’s Record does not contain State’s Exhibit 25, th e police interview of Andre Dju na Hubert . Instead, the CD ROM contains two copies of Defense’s Exhibit 1, the police interview of James Alexander McCoy. Belinda G. Baraka, official court reporter of the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, is ORDERED to file a supplemental Reporter’s Record with this Court containing a copy of State’s Exhibit 25, th e police interview of Andre Dju na Hubert WITHIN TEN DAYS of the date of th is Order.The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to Belinda G. Baraka, official court reporter of the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas, County, Texas.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
M. P. No. 75-6.

#### John Infantolino *v.*James W. Mullen, *Warden.*

*Schreiber, Abedon and Jessup, Richard Jessup, Jr.,*for petitioner. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Donald P. Ryan,*Asst. Attorney General, for respondent.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied as moot.
204.470-3 Contract clause. Use the clause at 252.204-7010, Requirement for Contractor to Notify DoD if the Contractor's Activities are Subject to Reporting Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol, in solicitations and contracts for research and development or major defense acquisition programs involving— ( a ) Any fissionable materials (e.g., uranium, plutonium, neptunium, thorium, americium);
( b ) Other radiological source materials; or
( c ) Technologies directly related to nuclear power production, including nuclear or radiological waste materials.
[74 FR 2412, Jan. 15, 2009]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lazaro Dachille, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for enlargement of time to perfect the appeal, granted; appellant’s time is enlarged to the April Term, commencing March 27, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion in all other respects denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
### §7443. Issuance and amendment of orders

#### (a) In general

Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary shall issue 1 or more orders under this subchapter applicable to producers and first purchasers of canola, rapeseed, or canola or rapeseed products. The order shall be national in scope. Not more than 1 order shall be in effect under this subchapter at any 1 time.

#### (b) Procedure

#### (1) Proposal or request for issuance

The Secretary may propose the issuance of an order under this subchapter, or an association of canola and rapeseed producers or any other person that would be affected by an order issued pursuant to this subchapter may request the issuance of, and submit a proposal for, an order.

#### (2) Notice and comment concerning proposed order

Not later than 60 days after the receipt of a request and proposal for an order pursuant to paragraph (1), or whenever the Secretary determines to propose an order, the Secretary shall publish a proposed order and give due notice and opportunity for public comment on the proposed order.

#### (3) Issuance of order

After notice and opportunity for public comment are given as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall issue an order, taking into consideration the comments received and including in the order provisions necessary to ensure that the order is in conformity with the requirements of this subchapter. The order shall be issued and become effective not later than 180 days following publication of the proposed order.

#### (c) Amendments

The Secretary may amend an order issued under this section.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §534, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1050.)
Richard K. Simon, Esq. 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

(310) 503-7286 

rsimon3~ilverizon.net 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

RECEIVED 

MAY 1 3 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. S.W. 

Washington D.C. 20591 

May 13,2016 

Re: Motion of Justice Aviation, Inc. to Withdraw as a 

Complainant (Docket No. FAA-16-16-02) 

Mark Smith, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc., Bill's Air Center, 

Inc., Inc., justice Aviation, Inc., National Business Aviation 

Association, Inc., and Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, California 

Complainant justice Aviation, Inc. hereby moves to withdraw as a complainant in the aboveentitled Part 16 proceeding. This motion is based on a settlement agreement between justice 

Aviation Inc. and Respondent City of Santa Monica, California in separate and unrelated 

litigation, and is required by the terms of that agreement Counsel for Respondent advises 

that Respondent supports this motion. 

This motion is brought by Complainant justice Aviation, Inc. alone, and does not affect the 

claims of any other parties in this proceeding. 

Respectfully submitted, 

RichardK:simo;;:ES(;, 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

310-503-7286 

rsimon3 @verizon.net 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing to be served on the following 

persons by first-class mail with a courtesy copy by electronic mail: 

Rick Cole 

City Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 209 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

1_na nager(iiJ smgov.net 

Martin Pastucha 

Director of Public Works 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 116 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

martin. past u c h a (iiJ s m g ov. net 

Nelson Hernandez 

Senior Advisor to the City Manager on 

Airport Affairs 

Airport Administration Building 

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

n e Is on. he rn and ez (iiJ s m go v. net 

Dated this 13th day of May, 2 016. 

Richard K Simon, Esq., 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

310-503-7286 

rsimon 3 (iiJverizon.net 

Marsha Moutrie, Esq. 

City Attorney 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 310 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

mars ha.m o u trie(alsmgov.net 

Stelios Makrides 

Airport Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

Airport Administration Building 

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

stelios.makrides(alsmgoy.net 

Scott Lewis, Esq. 

Partner 

Anderson & Kreiger LLP 

One Canal Park, Suite 200 

Cambridge, MA 02141 

s I ewi s@ and e rsp n kre i ge r. com
19.1504 Exclusions. This subpart does not apply to— ( a ) Requirements that an 8(a) contractor is currently performing under the 8(a) program or that SBA has accepted for performance under the authority of the 8(a) program, unless SBA has consented to release the requirements from the 8(a) program;
( b ) Requirements that can be satisfied through award to mandatory Government sources (see section 8.002);
( c ) Orders under indefinite-delivery contracts (see subpart 16.5). (But see 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) for discretionary set-asides of orders); or
( d ) Orders against Federal Supply Schedules (see subpart 8.4). (But see 8.405-5 for discretionary set-asides of orders.)
[76 FR 18311, Apr. 1, 2011, as amended at 76 FR 68036, Nov. 2, 2011; 79 FR 24202, Apr. 29, 2014; 82 FR 4731, Jan. 13, 2017; 87 FR 58241, Sept. 23, 2022]
#### Constant Uzanski, Respondent, v. James E. Fitzsimmons, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta and Christ, JJ., concur; Pette, J., not voting.
#### Chenango Gas Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., Appellants, and Ætna Casualty & Surety Company et al., Respondents.

-Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of -Simpson, J., at Special Term (39 Mise 2d 177). Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
#### Hylan Homes, Inc., Respondent, v. Hylan Terrace, Inc., Appellant.

— In a special proceeding to obtain an injunction under section 964 of the Penal Law, Hylan Terrace, Inc. (the respondent below) appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered June 29, 1960, granting petitioner’s application to restrain said appellant, Hylan Terrace, Inc., from using its name or any simulation thereof in connection with its business. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and application denied, without costs, and without prejudice to a plenary action for an injunction and damages, if appellant be so advised. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. It does not appear that appellant (Hylan Terrace, Inc.) adopted its name for the purpose of capitalizing on petitioner’s good will or with the intent of deceiving the public into believing that in doing business with appellant they were dealing with petitioner. Nor does it appear that in Staten Island the name “Hylan” has acquired such a secondary meaning that it is there understood to refer solely to petitioner’s business. Nor does it appear that there is any present competition between petitioner and appellant. Material averments with respect to the intent to deceive and the likelihood of deceiving the public are substantially controverted. Under the circumstances, the granting of the summary remedy provided by section 964 of the Penal Law is unwarranted. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### DECKER, Respondent, v. KELLS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 11, 1903.)

Action by Mary L. Decker against Hiram Kells.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### 1839.107 Contract clause.

[62 FR 4473, Jan. 30, 1997. Redesignated at 62 FR 36721, July 9, 1997]
#### 209.571 Organizational conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Team, Inc. andSubsidiaries: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-119341, No. 333-119344,No. 333-119346, No. 333-30003, No. 333-72329, No. 333-74060, No. 333-72331, No. 333-74070, No. 333-74062, No. 333-29997, No. 333-74068, No. 333-138011, and No. 333-151151) on Form S-8 ofTeam, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our reports dated August 6, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Team, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of May 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income comprehensiveincome, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended May 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of May 31, 2010, which reports appear in theMay 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Team, Inc. and Subsidiaries. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Houston, Texas 

August 6, 2010