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





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Dennis
      M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      the
      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and





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


PHOTOMEDEX,
              INC.Dated:
              March 16, 2007
            By:
            /s/
              Dennis M. McGrathDennis
                M. McGrath
              Chief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“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 PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### Charles Sfinas, Plaintiff, v. 1400 Broad Street Realty Corp. et al., Defendants. Chicago Supermarket New Hartford Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: This appeal is from an order dismissing the third-party complaint of Chicago Super Market (hereinafter “ Chicago”) against American Mutual Liability (hereinafter “American”). “American ” issued a liability policy covering the plaintiff’s automobile which contained the usual clauses with respect to additional insureds being covered during the loading and unloading process. The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on September 7, 1962 while at the place of business of “ Chicago ” he was unloading a supply of meat at a loading platform from a pushcart owned and maintained by “ Chicago ”. The meat was being loaded into plaintiff’s vehicle. The complaint further alleges that the pushcart was in poor mechanical condition and dangerous to those using it and was carelessly and negligently maintained by “ Chicago ”. The complaint also alleges that the loading platform itself was improperly constructed and negligently maintained. “ Chicago ” in *755its third-party complaint alleges it was assisting the plaintiff in the loading process and thus became an additional insured under the policy issued by “ American ” to the plaintiff. It is conceded on this appeal that no employees of “'Chicago ” were participating in the actual loading or unloading process. Special Term decided “The accident happened during the period when the ear was being loaded, but the process of loading was not its efficient producer. The accident did not arise out of the loading process.” It is difficult to determine whether the decision is based on a determination that the accident resulted only from a defective condition of the loading dock or on the fact that no employee of “ Chicago ” was assisting in the loading process. We conclude that whichever basis was used it was error. If the former, Special Term decided a factual issue which can only be resolved at trial. If the latter, we disagree since we see no difference between furnishing a defective piece of equipment to be used in the loading process which causes injury and an employee furnished to assist in the process who negligently deports himself *(Chenango Gas Co.*v. *Allstate Ins. Co.,*39 Misc 2d 177, affd. 19 A D 2d 928). We conclude the third-party complaint states a cause of action and the order should be reversed. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term, dismissing third-party complaint.) Present— Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Veeehio, JJ.
**Welcome to the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development!**

## About

The Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD) advises the Secretary on all matters relating to policy development, implementation, and review. OPEPD coordinates with Department offices to ensure alignment with the Secretary’s priorities, including a focus of evidence-based practices where the Department and the field can continuously improve by building stronger evidence, making decisions based on a clear understanding of the available evidence, and  disseminating evidence to decision makers. In addition, OPEPD oversees the design, supervision, and publication of evaluation studies; it clarifies and enforces of laws related to student privacy; developing educational technology policy and establishing strategies that encourage the use educational technology to transform teaching and learning; and advances Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education in the Department, across Federal agencies, and with external partners.

OPEPD is home to the Grants Policy Office, the Office of the Chief Data Officer, the Office of Educational Technology, the Student Privacy Policy Office and the Office of Budget Service. The Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development is Roberto Rodriguez.

For more information about the functions and structure of the office, please visit https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/or/fs/opepd/intro.html.

Archived Pages:

Reports and Resources

Policy and Program Studies Service
-TM E SI=>IP5rr O F AJ_iA,SK A 

'^HTMEMT OF 

iSPORIAiiON 

•TOPERATiCNS 

•R 0 i O 58 

February 9, 2012 

Dockets - Dockets OST 96-1960 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. 

Room PL 401 

Washington, D.C. 2059 

RE: Peninsula Airways d/b/a PenAir operated in partnership with Island Air - Family 

Assistance Program 

PenAir operates in partnership with Island Air. These operations are conducted under a wet 

lease agreement with Island Air, and will be covered under Island Air's Family Assistance Plan. 

The Island Air's Family Assistance Plan on file with your offlce, details coverage as required by 

the amended Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996 (49 U.S.C. 1136 and 41113), 

along with requirement specified in Vision 100. Island Air has entered into contract with FEI, for 

provision of aviation disaster response and family assistance services. In the event of an 

aviatbn accident or incident, FEI will provide the following services on behalf of Island Air: 

• Next of Kin Notification 

The Island Air Emergency Response plan outlines responsibilities in addressing the airline 

victim support tasks within the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Plan in greater detail. 

Should you have questions, please feel free to contact me atl ^orvia email at 

Sincerely, 

Brian WhikJen 

Vice President, Safety / Compliance 

peninsula airways inc. | 6100 boeing avenue | anchorage alaska 99502
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Reynolds C. Faulkner, Executive Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer of The CatoCorporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that on the date of this Certification:1. the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended July 29, 2006 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: September 5, 2006     /s/ Reynolds C. Faulkner     Reynolds C. Faulkner  Executive Vice President  Chief Financial Officer
26
On January 12, 2015, the Yakima School District entered into a voluntary Agreement to resolve a compliance review initiated to examine whether the Yakima School District took appropriate action to address harassment of students on the bases of sex, race, color, national origin, and disability.  The Agreement was obtained prior to the completion of OCR’s investigation.  According to the Agreement, the District will promptly investigate all incidents of harassment based on sex, race, color, national origin, and disability of which it has notice; and take appropriate action to end the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects if appropriate; hire or assign an equity consultant to assist with the district’s implementation of the agreement; create a notice of non-discrimination and anti-harassment statement that complies with Title IX, Section 504 and Title II and provide effective notice of the statement to students, parents, employees and third parties.  Additionally, under the agreement, the district will establish grievance procedures compliant with Title IX, Section 504 and Title II; and provide effective notice of the procedures; designate compliance coordinators and provide effective notice of the coordinators; conduct annual school climate checks related to harassment incidents; create a task force to suggest strategies for dealing with harassment in schools; and  train staff and coordinators on obligations related to identifying, reporting, investigating, and taking appropriate action in response to harassment incidents.  The District will also train students on recognizing and reporting harassment; create a system for investigating, record-keeping and tracking complaints and incidents of harassment; create a system for monitoring the effectiveness of its response to harassment and conduct a self-assessment.

***Read the Press Release | Read the Resolution Letter PDF**(149K)**| Read the Resolution Agreement PDF**(59K)*

  

Top
227.7103-11 Contractor procedures and records. ( a ) The clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data— Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services, requires a contractor, and its subcontractors or suppliers that will deliver technical data with other than unlimited rights, to establish and follow written procedures to assure that restrictive markings are used only when authorized and to maintain records to justify the validity of asserted restrictions on delivered data.
( b ) The clause at 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data requires contractors and their subcontractors at any tier to maintain records sufficient to justify the validity of restrictive markings on technical data delivered or to be delivered under a Government contract.
[60 FR 33471, June 28, 1995, as amended at 88 FR 6585, Jan. 31, 2023]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1403

XIAO ZUO,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-471-647)

Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: November 1, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard T. Mei, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD T. MEI, Bethesda, Maryland,

for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol

Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay L. Chichester, OFFICE

OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

As Zuo fails in her opening brief to set forth any argument

concerning the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief, we

find that those claims have been abandoned on appeal. See

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.

1999). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Xiao Zuo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming

the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT).* 

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Zuo fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### 226.7101 Definition.

*Vicinity,* as used in this subpart, means the county or counties in which the military installation to be closed or realigned is located and all adjacent counties, unless otherwise defined by the agency head.

[60 FR 29499, June 5, 1995]
#### In the Matter of Arthur Simensky et al., Respondents, v. George H. Mangravite et al., Constituting the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Lynbrook, Appellants.

In a proceeding under article *78*of the Civil Practice Act to review and annul a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Lynbrook, denying petitioners’ application for a special exception to erect an apartment house with variances from the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 55 of said village, the said board appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 19, 1961, which: (1) granted the petition; (2) annulled the board’s determination; and (3) directed the board to cause a building permit to be issued to petitioners subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed pursuant to subdivision (d) of article 14A of said Zoning Ordinance. Order reversed, on the law, without costs; and petition dismissed, without costs. The facts contained in the Special Term’s decision and opinion are affirmed. It is conceded that petitioners’ proposed apartment house would violate the village zoning ordinance. That ordinance prohibits such structures in excess of 2% stories and in excess of 30 feet in height; it requires parking spaces to be provided; and each such parking space must measure 12 feet by 20 feet. The ordinance permits one and two-family houses of three stories and up to 45 feet in height. In our opinion, this application for a “ special exception ” to relieve petitioners from compliance with the above provisions could not properly be made to the Village Board of Trustees. Although we note that counsel has raised no valid objection to the enactment of special exception procedure in relation to height and parking space requirements, as distinguished from “use” restrictions, the instant ordinance has not made that procedure so applicable. Special exception procedure applies only to uses or improvements expressly permitted by the zoning ordinance, but with such permission subject to approval by an official body, e.g., a Zoning Board of Appeals *(Matter of Syosset Holding Corp.*v. *Schlimm,*15 Misc 2d 10, mod. 4 A D 2d 766; 1 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, ch. 54, § 1). Here, there is no such permission; the proposed improvement is flatly prohibited. In any event, the board’s determination was not capricious *(Matter of Lemir Realty Corp.*v. *Larkin,*10 A D 2d 1005, affd. 11 N Y 2d 21). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Henry Amy et al., Respondents, *v.*Abram Stein et al., Appellants.

(Argued October 17, 1883 ;

decided October 26, 1883.)

*Samuel Hand*for appellants.

*N. C. Moak*for respondents.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur, except Earl and Danforth, JJ., dissenting. Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cagle’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended January 2, 2010 (the “Report”), I, J. Douglas Cagle,Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/  J. Douglas Cagle                            |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
| J.  Douglas Cagle                                |   |
| Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and President |   |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)                   |   |
| Date:  February 15, 2010                    |   |

 

1

----
New Program Approval

ED has requested proposals relating to the approval of new Gainful Employment programs.  It has requested that such proposals assist it in narrowing the scope of new programs to be subject to such approval.  

As has been discussed in our in-person sessions and at our telephonic session, most institutions offering GE programs are subject to multiple sources of program approval and oversight – by their accrediting bodies, state licensing agencies and, in many cases, by the Department itself, through the means of Provisional Program Participation Agreements (“PPPA”).  Many of these accrediting bodies and many of the state licensing agencies apply a rigorous standard of review to programs, evaluating their academic quality, the resources allocated to support students, and the demand for such programs.  To be sure, some states are less rigorous than others, providing little to no oversight of new programs offered within their jurisdictions.  However, for multistate and online institutions, new programs must be developed to satisfy the requirements of the most rigorous oversight entity, notwithstanding the more permissive requirements of others.  

Any GE program approval regimen to be developed by ED should take into account that dynamic matrix of program approval for many institutions, requiring Departmental approval only in circumstances where an institution is unable to demonstrate that its programs are subject to a rigorous approval process prior to implementation.  Such an approach would have the advantage of 1) ensuring rigorous review of all new GE programs, 2) minimizing duplicative or conflicting requirements for institutions, 3) minimizing the substantial burden on the Department of reviewing large numbers of proposed GE programs, and 4) minimizing the Department’s involvement in the program of instruction of educational institutions and preserving the integrity of each sector’s role in the so-called “triad” of higher education oversight.

Proposal:

1) If an institution can demonstrate that a new program has already been substantively reviewed and approved by any state or any of the institution’s accreditors, then the new program would not be required to be separately approved by the Department;

2) If an institution’s programs are required to be reviewed and approved by ED pursuant to a PPPA, then the approval procedures employed  by ED in that process would be sufficient for GE program approval purposes, and no further or additional ED review process would apply;

3) In the event that all of an institution’s programs pass the GE metric(s) (however defined) for two consecutive years, the institution’s new programs shall be exempt from any ED program approval process, notwithstanding 1) and 2) above.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsFigure 3. Number of Corophium spp. /m2 by station at Beach Nourishment Area W-40.9 in the lower Columbia River. Sampling was conducted in July and October 1994 and January and April 1995. Odd- and even-numbered stations were located about 15 and 30 m, respectively, from the high tide mark on the beach.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7945

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL D. WALDE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-02-445; CA-04-291) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 2, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul D. Walde, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Paul D. Walde, formerly a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). The prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walde has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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