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
condition with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polydex Pharmaceuticals
Limited (the Company) for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Sharon L. Wardlaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Company.

|                          |                          | 
|------------------------- | ------------------------ | 
|By                        | /s/    Sharon L. Wardlaw | 
|                          |                          | 
|Sharon L.
  Wardlaw,      |                         
|Chief
  Financial Officer |                         
|April 29,
  2005          |                         

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

---
#### Empire Mutual Ins. Co., Appellant, v. Charles Ingram et al.. Respondents.

Appeal dismissed unless records and briefs are filed and served on or before July 16, 1962.
#### 1452.280-3 Indian Economic Enterprise subcontracting limitations.

A contractor shall not subcontract more than the subcontract limitations specified under FAR 52.219-14 to other than responsible Indian Economic Enterprises when receiving an award under the Buy Indian Act. For this purpose, work to be performed does not include the provision of materials, supplies, or equipment. As prescribed in 1480.503(e)(3), insert the following clause in each written solicitation or contract to provide supplies, general services, A-E services, or construction:

# Indian Economic Enterprise Subcontracting Limitations (FEB 2021)

(a) Definitions as used in this clause.

(1) *Concern* means any business entity with a place of business located in the United States or its outlying areas and that makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes and/or use of American products, materials and/or labor, etc. It includes but is not limited to an individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, association, or cooperative. For the purpose of making affiliation findings (see FAR 19.101), it includes any business entity, whether or not it is organized for profit or located in the United States or its outlying areas.

(2) *Subcontract* means any agreement (other than one involving an employer-employee relationship) entered into by a government prime contractor or subcontractor calling for supplies and/or services required for performance of the contract, contract modification, or subcontract.

(3) *Subcontractor* means a concern to which a contractor subcontracts any work under the contract. It includes subcontractors at any tier who perform work on the contract.

(b) Required Percentages of work by the concern. The contractor must comply with FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting clause in allocating what percentage of work to subcontract. The contractor shall not subcontract work exceeding the subcontract limitations in FAR 52.219-14 to a concern other than a responsible Indian Economic Enterprise.

(c) Any work that an IEE subcontractor does not perform with its own employees shall be considered subcontracted work for the purpose of calculating percentages of subcontract work in accordance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting.

(d) Cooperation. The contractor must:

(1) Carry out the requirements of this clause to the fullest extent; and

(2) Cooperate in any study or survey that the CO, Indian Affairs, or its agents may conduct to verify the contractor's compliance with this clause.

(e) Incorporation in Subcontracts. The contractor must incorporate the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts for supplies, general services, A-E services, and construction awarded under this contract.

[87 FR 20764, Apr. 8, 2022]
**Exhibit      32.0**

**Certification      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. **
**§**
**1350**

**§**

| (1)   | The                accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the                quarter                ended September 2, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of                Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents,                in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                              |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Fred              R.              Adams, Jr.                                             |   |   |   |
| Fred                R. Adams, Jr.Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |        |

|                                                                                           |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Timothy                A. Dawson                                                      |   |   |   |
| Timothy                    A. DawsonVice                    President, Chief Financial Officer |   |   |        |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RANDALL W. SYLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1408

) USCA No. 13-1593

COUNTY OF WILL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court has issued a whole series of opinions in this 42

U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) action brought by Randall Syler

(“Syler”), beginning with its threshold determination that

Syler’s pro se Complaint appeared viable on its face (a

determination that, in accordance with this Court’s usual

procedure, carried with it the appointment of pro bono counsel to

represent Syler), but ultimately ending with a dismissal of the

action because factual submissions had shown that Syler had

failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies--a fatal

defect under 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). When Syler then sought to take

an appeal from that dismissal, this Court issued its most recent

memorandum order (“Order”) on April 26 of this year, denying in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) status for Syler on appeal because such a

dismissal was mandated by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3).

Now the Clerk’s Office has delivered to this Court’s

chambers a photocopy of a self-prepared handprinted filing by

Syler, captioned “Motion for Relief from Judgement [sic].” In

Case: 1:12-cv-01408 Document #: 65 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:298
that filing Syler seeks to invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 60(a)

because, he says, this Court never stated that an appeal from the

dismissal “would not be taken in good faith,” nor did this Court

state that Syler was not certified to pursue an appeal in forma

pauperis. Both of those assertions are dead wrong, for both

subjects were expressly dealt with in this Court’s most recent

memorandum order, issued post-appeal to address Syler’s effort to

appeal IFP.

Thus Order at 1 referred to this Court’s earlier January 24,

2013 memorandum opinion and order, which (as the Order put it)

“determined that Syler’s claim in that respect was bogus--that 1

he had fabricated evidence to mask his nonexhaustion of the

grievance that formed the gravamen of his lawsuit.” Then Order

at 2 went on to say (1) “that Syler clearly flunked the

nonfrivolousness requirement” and (2) that 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)

had therefore called for dismissal of Syler’s action at this

District Court level, so that (as the Order put it) this Court

ultimately “certifie[d] that Syler’s attempted appeal cannot be

taken IFP because such nonfrivolousness equates to an absence of

good faith under Lee v. Clinton.”

 [Footnote by this Court] That reference was to Syler’s 1

failure to have exhausted available administrative remedies,

which 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a) established as a precondition to any

“prison conditions” lawsuit by a prisoner.

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01408 Document #: 65 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:299
In sum, Syler’s current motion is totally without merit. It

is denied.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 16, 2013

3

Case: 1:12-cv-01408 Document #: 65 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:300
#### Henley *v.*Fortson.

Hill, J.

B. obtained a loan from L., and secured the same by a deed conveying a house and lot owned by B. Afterwards B. sold the property to H., and gave him a bond for title to it, subject to the loan deed, which was assumed by H. L. died, and M. qualified as executrix. The latter, by authority of the will and as an individual legatee, sold and *343transferred the loan note to E., and in the same capacity also conveyed the title to the property to E. When the loan became due, E. obtained judgment and filed her. quitclaim deed; and the sheriff of the county was proceeding to sell the property under a levy. No tender of the debt due was made by the plaintiff. H. filed his equitable petition, praying for injunction against the executrix of L., E., the sheriff, and the administrator of B., to prevent the selling or offering to sell the property levied on; and that they be required to accept the amount due on the loan of B., and to execute title to H.; and that the deed to the administrator of B. be declared null and void. *Held,*that the court did not err in dissolving the temporary restraining order previously granted, nor in denying thq interlocutory injunction prayed for.

January 23, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Ellis. Fulton superior court. July 16, 1912.

*J. S. James,*for plaintiff. *A. G. Broom,*for defendant.

*(a)*There was no error in admitting any of the evidence complained of, nor in rejecting the evidence excluded.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Comments regarding docket no. EPA-Fic2-oAR-2013-0602 

By: Jessica Jones 

jj.jessicajones@gmail.com 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Environmental Protection Agency's 

Clean Power Plan. 

I strongly support the EPA's effort to limit industrial carbon pollution from all 

power plants. The new proposed standard to limit greenhouse gases from existing 

power plants is an important step in the fight against climate change. 

I believe that climate change is the greatest challenge of our time. International 

and national scientific studies have repeatedly shown that carbon pollution 

contributes directly to climate change and the threats that it brings to our 

communities. Power plants are currently the largest source of carbon pollution, 

emitting 40% of carbon emissions in the United States. These emissions are the 

chief cause of climate change in our country. 

I'm not a mom, politician or industry specialist. I am however an aunt, a runner 

and a citizen. I believe that it is our moral obligation to put people before 

polluters and put an end to the unlimited dumping of carbon pollution into our 

air. To me this means a safer environment for my nieces and nephews, cleaner air 

to breathe while running and an important step to preserving our most important 

commodity, our planet. 

This new clean air standard will protect public health, fight climate change, and 

create jobs through innovation in cleaner, energy technology. The regulation as 

written, will give flexibility to states to formulate their own plans to meet the 

goals set by the EPA. This means that the many states and local communities that 

have already taken action on climate change, will continue to have the resources 

to move forward. This new federal safeguard will set commonsense limits on 

carbon pollution, inspire investment in infrastructure to protect communities 

from the climate change impacts they are already experiencing, and spur the kind 

of innovation that will power America with clean energy in the 21st century. The 
new safeguards will also give states flexibility to implement plans that increase 

efficiency, improve resiliency and remove carbon pollution from our air. 

Reducing the amount of carbon pollution from power plants is a life-saving 

measure that will protect our children, our nation and the world from the 

devastating effects of climate change. Limits on carbon pollution should match 

the limits currently placed on mercury, arsenic, and soot. 

The standards proposed by the EPA are aggressive and ambitious. I commend the 

EPA for taking the necessary steps to limit carbon pollution from both new and 

existing sources. I stand by you in support of this regulation and your plan to 

maintain an affordable, reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and 

protecting our health and environment. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. 

EPA—HQ—OAR-2013-0602 

Jones, p. 2
1536.602-2 Establishment of evaluation boards. ( a ) The Environmental Protection Agency Architect-Engineer Evaluation Board is established as a central permanent Board located at Headquarters EPA under authority delegated to the Director, Office of Acquisition Management, which may be re-delegated.
( b ) The Service Center Manager (SCM) is delegated the authority to appoint either one or two additional voting members as may be appropriate for a particular project.
( c ) In the event of an emergency or extended absence, a member may designate, in writing, with the concurrence of the Chairperson, an alternate experienced in architecture, engineering, or construction to serve in his/her absence.
( d ) The duties of the advisory member shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Assuring that the criteria set forth in the public notice are applied in the evaluation process; and
( 2 ) Assuring that actions taken during the evaluation process do not compromise subsequent procurement actions.
[59 FR 18977, Apr. 21, 1994, as amended at 67 FR 5052, Feb. 4, 2002; 70 FR 61569, Oct. 25, 2005]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., Appellant, against Percy H. Haring et al., Constituting the Board of Assessors of Taxes in the Town of Lansing, Respondents. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Appellant, against Carleton D. Kintz et al., Constituting the Board of Assessors of Taxes of the Town of Lansing, Respondents. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Appellant, against Carleton D. Kintz et al., Constituting the Board of Assessors of Taxes of the Town of Lansing, Respondents.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. Submit order conforming with Third Department Regulations affecting orders, Form 7 (cf. rule VIII). Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur. Coon, J., taking no part.
From Informal Group Working on Prior Approval Proposal 

We are sending some suggestions on prior approval out to all the negotiators to ask for your 

thoughts in a few specific areas. Although we provided these during negotiations, and got some 

feedback then, we are sending these out again so that we can gather any additional feedback that 

may have occurred to you since, or that there was no time to offer during the negotiations. We 

anticipate developing detailed language on prior approval provisions, but believe your input on 

the concepts, before we develop specific language would be very helpful. The purpose behind 

the list below is to have a few, clear, specific criteria that would be clearer, more specific, and 

more useful in weeding out the worst GE programs before students become indebted for them, 

than the current requirement to attest that there is a need for the GE program proposed. 

Here are the questions we have for you about the concept/list below: 

1. What, if any, technical issues do you see that might impact how or whether these criteria 

could work? 

2. What, if any practical issues do you see in gathering the necessary information? 

3. Do you have any suggestions for any other specific, clear criteria that would distinguish the 

worst GE programs, that you think should be added or substituted for any in the list? 

4. If you are aware of any accrediting associations or states that require any of the criteria 

included in the list below for approval of GE or other programs, do they have any specific 

requirements for how the information is to be collected or documented? 

5. If not all GE programs would have to be approved in advance, do you have any suggestions 

for how to determine which ones should be? 

6. Some negotiators discussed rigorous approval processes they used. Given that poorperforming programs exist, do you have any suggestions about aspects of your approval process 

that others are not using that you believe would weed out those weak programs? 

Here is the concept on which we want your feedback (the more specific the better): 

 All the data must demonstrate that the program will prepare students for gainful employment in 

a recognized occupation: 

 

-projected ratio of debt to earnings shows earnings sufficient to repay debt 

- projected earnings greater than 150% of poverty level 

-has programmatic approval generally needed to sit for state licensure exam or private 

certification exams generally expected by employers 

-training at that level is generally required to obtain employment in the SOC codes identified 

 
Data supporting these items to be obtained in reliable and valid survey conducted in same 

manner DE proposed for salary surveys for earnings alternative data or other reliable and 

verifiable documentation to be discussed. 

Thank you for your help.
Dear Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee,

Now that proposed language has been shared, on behalf of Jo Blondin and myself (negotiators 

representing the Public Two-Year Institutions of Higher Education), I’d like to formally endorse language 

submitted by Jason Lorgan and Alyssa Dobson (negotiators representing the Public Four-Year 

Institutions of Higher Education) regarding 34 CFR 668.164(c)(2).

Their proposed language seeks to preserve timely and affordable access to course materials and student 

choice, while increasing cost transparency and expanding opt-out capabilities.

We urge the Department to consider this common-sense proposed language in its next draft of 

regulatory language related to the cost of books and supplies.

Sincerely,

****************************

Michael A. Cioce Ed.D.

President

Rowan College at Burlington County

Votta Hall, Suite 263

3331 State Route 38

Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-9414

(856) 222-2511 Direct

(609) 894-0139 (F)

mcioce@rcbc.edu

rcbc.edu
Team II – Foreign Schools 

Primary Negotiator Alternate Negotiator 

Harrison Wadsworth 

Executive Director 

International Education Council 

Yvonne Oberhollenzer 

Manager-Policy and Research 

Australian Education International North 

America 

Embassy of Australia 

John Hayton 

Counselor (Education) 

Australian Educational International North 

America 

Embassy of Australia 

Judy Stymest 

Director of Scholarships and Student 

Aid/International Student Services 

McGill University 

Scholarships and Student Aid Office 

Alexander Leipziger 

Canadian Embassy 

Research and Academic Relations Associate 

Public Affairs 

Warren Ross 

President 

International University of Nursing and the 

University of Medicine and Health Sciences 

Jerry Thornton 

Vice President 

International University of Nursing and the 

University of Medicine Health Sciences 

Cynthia Holden 

Authorized House Counsel for Medical 

Education Services 

American University of the Caribbean 

School of Medicine 

James McIntyre 

McIntyre Law Firm, PLLC 

Nancy Perri 

Vice President of Academic Affairs 

Ross University School of Medicine 

William Clohan 

Vice President, Strategic Planning 

DeVry Inc. 

Steven Rodger 

Chairman and CEO 

R3 Education Inc. 

Patrick Donnellan 

Executive Vice President 

R3 Education Inc. 

Ronald Blumenthal 

Kaplan Higher Education, Inc. 

Rebecca Campoverde 

Vice President, Government Relations 

Kaplan, Inc. 

Charles Modica 

Chancellor 

St. George’s University 

Betsy Mayotte 

Director of Regulatory Compliance and 

Privacy 

American Student Assistance 

Jacqueline Fairbairn 

Vice President, Policy and Regulatory 

Compliance, Claims and Collections 

Great Lakes Higher Education Guaranty 

Corporation 

1
2

David Bergeron 

U.S. Department of Education 

Gail McLarnon 

U.S. Department of Education 

01/20/2010
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD G. BUMPUS, a/k/a Ronald Bompus, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-185, CA-01-156) Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 24, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald G. Bumpus, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ronald G. Bumpus seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Bumpus , Nos. CR-98-185; CA01-156 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### 1316.501-2-70 Task orders.

Insert clause 1352.216-74, *Task Orders,* or a substantially similar clause in task order solicitations and contracts, making changes, as appropriate. Contracting officers are encouraged to make appropriate modifications to the time requirements and procedures to meet the Government's needs.