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


                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of ELXSI Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:

         (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2003 (the "Report") of the Company 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
materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: March 22, 2004                          /s/ David M. Doolittle
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   David M. Doolittle
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to ELXSI Corporation and will be retained by ELXSI Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
2448.103 Processing value engineering change proposals. Upon receipt of a Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP), the Contracting Officer shall promptly forward it to the program office responsible for the contract, indicating: ( a ) The date the VECP was received;
( b ) The date by which the contractor must be informed of the government's acceptance or rejection of the VECP, unless additional time is required for evaluation;
( c ) The date by which the Contracting Officer must know of the technical officer's decision in order to timely accept or reject the VECP;
( d ) The need for information required to inform the contractor if the VECP is to be rejected or if additional time is needed to evaluate the VECP;
( e ) The potential for awarding concurrent, future, or collateral savings to the contractor, if the VECP is accepted;
( f ) That if the VECP is accepted, precise information will be needed with regard to the type of savings, and government costs, that can be expected from its acceptance;
( g ) The need for a procurement request setting forth the specification changes to be used in a contract modification accepting the VECP in whole or in part; and
( h ) The need for additional funds, if acceptance of the VECP will result in an increase in the cost of contract performance.
#### Patrick Fox *vs.*Smith Ellison.

February 18, 1890.

Municipal Court — Legal and Equitable Actions. — Complaint considered, and *held not to be upon*an equitable cause of action, so as to be beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court of Stillwater.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the municipal court of Still-water, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, in which plaintiff asked judgment for $97.90.

*C. P. Gregory,*for appellant.

H. *N. Setzer,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

This action was commenced in the municipal court of Stillwater, and comes here on appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that that court had not jurisdiction of the action. That court has no jurisdiction of a purely equitable cause of action, and cannot grant equitable relief. The demurrer was interposed and sustained on the theory that such is the character of the cause of action set forth in this complaint. The complaint alleges that Daniel P. and Garret G. Fox were the owners of logs bearing a certain log-mark; that the log-mark was of record in the office of the surveyor general of logs, in the name of the defendant, as security for money loaned and supplies furnished, it being agreed that, when paid, defendant should transfer the log-mark, and all logs bearing it, to the Foxes; that he has been paid in full, and when they demanded it he refused to so transfer. It then states how many logs he received, and did not pay nor account for, and the value thereof, and that he received such value, and promised to pay the same to said Foxes, but on demand refused to do so, and that the Foxes have assigned the claim to plaintiff. The complaint asks judgment for the value of the logs.

There is nothing in this statement of a cause of action to prevent a justice of the peace, or the municipal court, entertaining it and granting the relief sought. It is true, some of the facts suggest an equitable cause of action, to wit, for specific performance of the *42agreement to transfer the log-mark, but the action is not brought upon it; that relief is not sought. The theory of the complaint is that, the logs belonging to the Foxes, the defendant, after the debt was paid, was accountable to them for the value, or for the proceeds of sales of them, as for money had and received. The fact that the log-mark was recorded in defendant’s name is not inconsistent with the Foxes owning the logs, for the record of a log-mark, in the name of one person, is only *prima facie*evidence that logs bearing that mark are the property of such person. Gen. St. 1878, § 27, c. 32.

Order reversed.
#### 232.7001 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Electronic form* means any automated system that transmits information electronically from the initiating system to affected systems.

*Payment request* means any request for contract financing payment or invoice payment submitted by the contractor under a contract or task or delivery order.

*Receiving report* means the data prepared in the manner and to the extent required by appendix F of this chapter, Material Inspection and Receiving Report.

[83 FR 66063, Dec. 21, 2018]
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Negotiated Rulemaking – Violence Against Women Act**

**1990 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.**

**8th Floor Conference Center**

**February 24-25, 2014; 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.**

**AGENDA**

**Welcome**

**Housekeeping Items**

**Remarks from Acting Undersecretary Jamie Studley**

**Review and Adoption of the Session 1 Meeting Summary**

**Overview**

**Discussion of the Issues**

· Definitions

· Sexual Assault Prevention Policy Statement

· Counting Crimes

· Prevention Programs

· Disciplinary Proceedings

**Next Steps**

· Meeting 3:  March 31 – April 1, 2014

· Other

**Opportunity for Public Comment**
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 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mountains West Exploration, Inc. (the “Corporation”) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the SEC (the “Report”), the undersigned in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby 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 Corporation.

This written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to such Report. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

|      |                                      |   |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
| By:  | /s/ Lee Wiskowski                         |   |  |
|      | President and Principal Executive Officer |   |   |
|      | April 17, 2007                            |   |   |
|           |                                           |        |  |  |

 

 

1
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Arbor Entech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal yearended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Shefts, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
|   |                     |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | s/ Mark Shefts           |   |
|   | Mark Shefts              |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | July  29, 2005           |

 

----
#### 244.101 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Acceptable purchasing system* and *purchasing system* are defined in the clause at 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration.

*Significant deficiency* is defined in the clause at 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration.

[76 FR 28871, May 18, 2011]
#### 252.239-7003 [Reserved]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 33-31298, 33-85020 and 333-39499 of Silicon Valley Group, Inc. on Forms
S-8 of our reports dated October 27, 1997 appearing in and incorporated by
reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Silicon Valley Group, Inc. for
the year ended September 30, 1997.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
San Jose, California
December 29, 1997
|  |
|--|

John Bailey has served as Senior Counsel in the Office of the General Counsel since March 2022.  He previously worked in the Washington, D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis, an international law firm, where his practice focused on litigation, antitrust, intellectual property, and prisoner civil rights.  Prior to that, John was a law clerk for the Honorable Robert Lasnik on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the Honorable Anthony Scirica on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  Before law school, John worked for NBC News, where he covered politics, the Supreme Court, and other national news.

He is a graduate of Duke University School of Law and Duke University.
The Emergency  Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education Program FY 2020 has closed. 

**Program Office:**Institutional Service

**CFDA Number:** 84.938T**Program Type:** Discretionary Grants**Also Known As:**EAI

Program Description

 Under the 2019 EAI Program, we will award grants for emergency assistance to eligible IHEs affected by Hurricanes Florence and Michael, Typhoon Mangkhut, Super Typhoon Yutu, and wildfires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions occurring in calendar year 2018 and tornadoes and floods occurring in calendar year 2019 for which a major disaster or emergency has been declared under section 401 or 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 and 5191) (hereafter referred to as “a covered disaster or emergency”). Funds will be awarded to assist activities directly related to mitigating the effects of a covered disaster or emergency on students and institutions. To the extent possible, we will prioritize projects that support students who are homeless or who are at risk of becoming homeless as a result of displacement related to a covered disaster or emergency; and IHEs that have sustained extensive damage by a covered disaster or emergency.

Types of Projects

 Funds may be used for any activity authorized under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. In making an award, the Department will consider:-  Expenses already incurred by the institution in remediation of the effects of the covered disasters or emergencies;
- Estimated construction or reconstruction costs to repair or replace campus buildings damaged or destroyed due to the covered disasters or emergencies;
- Further need for the project: additional expected expenses, for any purpose authorized under the Higher Education Act, that are not included in #1 or #2 in remediation of the effects of the covered disasters or emergencies;
- Portion of the expenses in lines 1–3 above (dollars, not percent) directly serving students who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless as a result of displacement due to the covered disasters or emergencies; and
- How much of the expenses described in lines 1-3 above (dollars, not percent) that will be or have been reimbursed by insurance (property, business continuity, or other applicable insurance policy or self-insurance arrangement), other Federal agencies, and all public and private donors of any kind other than the institution itself.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Select Medical Rehabilitation )
Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )

Vv. ) No. 12-cv-4662
)
Morris Healthcare & Rehabilitation )
Services, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and)
Morris Healthcare & Rehabilitation )
Center, LLC, an Illinois limited )
liability company. )
)
Defendants. )

CONSENT JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Select Medical Rehabilitation, Inc. (“Select Medical”), filed its
First Amended Complaint on July 8, 2013 alleging that Defendants breached an agreement
between the parties pursuant to which Defendants agreed to compensate Plaintiff for therapy
services furnished to patients of Morris Healthcare Rehabilitation Center, LLC;

AND WHEREAS, Defendant Morris Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, LLC has
consented to entry of this Consent Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or
law and to waive any appeal if the Consent Judgment is entered as submitted by the parties;

NOW THEREFORE, without trial or adjudication of issue of fact or law and upon consent
of Defendant Morris Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, the Court finds that there is good
and sufficient cause to enter this Consent Judgment, and that it is therefore, ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Select Medical shall be, and hereby is, awarded judgment from and
against Defendant Morris Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, in the

amount of $473,156.26. EXHIBIT

—
tabbies:


Prepared by:

This judgment shall bear interest from the date of this judgment until it is paid at a
rate equal to fifteen percent (15%) per annum, as provided by the agreement that
is the subject of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

The February 11, 2014 trial date is stricken.

Plaintiff's Rule 69 Motion For Discovery In Aid of Execution and Collection Of
its Judgment Is Granted, and Plaintiff is granted leave of court to pursue any and
all discovery that is allowed under the law.

Any and all judgment debtors will be subject to liability for any and all attorneys’
fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff during discovery, as provided by the
agreement that is the subject of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

Nothing in this order shall prevent Plaintiff from amending this Consent
Judgment as may be necessary to include any additional judgment debtors who
may be identified during the course of discovery, nor shall this order prevent
Plaintiff from amending its complaint as may be necessary to add new parties
and/or new causes of action that may be identified during discovery and as may

be necessary to enforce and/or collect its judgment.

Date

Judge Charles Norgle, Sr.

Robert E. O’Malley, Esq. (ARDC No. 6193458)
Chad J. Layton, Esq. (ARDC No. 6243339)
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.
233 S, Wacker Dr., Suite 5500

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Phone: (312) 645-7800

Fax: (312) 645-7711
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOHN THONARS MCGEE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50119

D.C. No. 2:07-cr-01208-AHM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

John Thonars McGee appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to

FILED

AUG 01 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-50119

modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Pleasant, 704

F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm. 

McGee contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under

Amendment 750 to the Guidelines, which lowered the offense levels for crimes

involving cocaine base under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. McGee acknowledges that the

district court calculated his advisory range under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the career

offender guideline, and that career offenders are not eligible for a sentence

reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728,

731-32 (9th Cir. 2009). He contends, however, that he is entitled to a reduction

because the court relied in part on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 in varying downward. The

record reflects that the court did not rely on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 in varying

downward. Even if it had, a reduction in McGee’s sentence would not be

consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), which establishes that the applicable

Guidelines range is the pre-departure and pre-variance Guidelines range. See

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (2011); Pleasant, 704 F.3d at 812. Accordingly,

the district court lacked authority to reduce McGee’s sentence. See id.

AFFIRMED.
*Note:  These Congressional Budget Justifications do not include State tables. For the latest State tables, please visit the Department's State Tables page*.Volume I- Education for the Disadvantaged  PDF (1.4MB) 
- Impact Aid   PDF (1.2MB)
- School Improvement Programs  PDF (2.0MB)
- Safe Schools and Citizenship Education  PDF (2.0MB)
- Indian Education  PDF (1.2MB)  ****)
- Innovation and Improvement  PDF (1.9MB)
- English Language Acquisition  PDF (622KB)
- Special Education  PDF (1.6MB)
- Rehabilitation Services  PDF (1.9MB)
Volume II- American Printing House for the Blind  PDF (73KB)
- National Technical Institute for the Deaf  PDF (172KB)
- Gallaudet University  PDF (228KB)
- Career, Technical, and Adult Education  PDF (1.4MB)
- Student Aid Overview  PDF (232KB)
- Student Financial Assistance  PDF (1.8MB)
- TEACH Grants  PDF (1.0MB)
- Student Loans Overview  PDF (1.2MB)
- Higher Education  PDF (2.7MB)
- Howard University  PDF (222KB)
- College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account  PDF (162KB)
- Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account  PDF (301KB)
- Institute of Education Sciences  PDF (675KB)
- Salaries and Expenses Overview  PDF (553KB)
- Program Administration  PDF (1.4MB)
- Student Aid Administration  PDF (1.4MB)
- Office for Civil Rights  PDF (474KB)
- Office of Inspector General  PDF (343KB)
  Last Modified: 05/23/2017
#### 22.1009-1 General.

If the place of performance is unknown, the contracting officer may use the procedures in this section. The contracting officer should first attempt to identify the specific places or geographical areas where the services might be performed (see 22.1009-2) and then may follow the procedures either in 22.1009-3 or in 22.1009-4.
# C_2017023EN.01000401.xml

| 24.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/4

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 23/04)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Germany

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Rhineland-Palatinate (‘Federal States’ (Bundesländer) series)

Subject of commemoration

Bundesländer

Description of the design
  : The design shows the Porta Nigra in Trier which is probably the best-preserved Roman city gate north of the Alps.

Description of the design

The inner part also features the name ‘RHEINLAND-PFALZ’ and the issuing country’s code ‘D’ at the bottom. The mint mark of the respective mint (‘A’, ‘D’, ‘F’, ‘G’ or ‘J’) appears at the left and the year ‘2017’ appears at the top. At the right, the initials of the designer ‘CH’ (Chocola Frantisek).

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  : 30 million

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : January/February 2017

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”) by Cascade Natural GasCorporation (the “Company”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Cascade Natural Gas Corporation and will be retained byCascade Natural Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or staff upon request.

 
|   | /s/ W. Brian Matsuyama                |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | W. Brian Matsuyama                    |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ J. D. Wessling                    |   |
|   | J.D. Wessling                         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

----