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

 

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 July 3, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Mark M. Ham IV,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifythat:

 

(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/  Mark M. Ham IV                 |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Mark  M. Ham IV                     |   |   |
| Executive  Vice President and Chief |   |   |
| Financial Officer                   |   |   |
| (Principal  Accounting Officer)     |   |   |

Date:  August 12, 2010

 

----
| 1.   | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period      ended January 22, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:      March 8, 2010     |   |   | /s/      William L. Bridgford                                         |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |   |   | William      L. Bridgford, Chairman(Principal      Executive Officer) |   |
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00377-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF ROGELIO GUERRA 

AND SUSAN RABEL GUERRA

On Appeal from the

197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-DCL-02658

JUDGMENT

This Court’s judgment issued on August 18, 2022, is hereby withdrawn and the 

following is substituted therefor.

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 10, 2022
227.7103-4 License rights. ( a ) *Grant of license.* The Government obtains rights in technical data, including a copyright license, under and irrevocable license granted or obtained for the Government by the contractor. The contractor or licensor retains all rights in the data not granted to the Government. For technical data that pertain to items, components, or processes, the scope of the license is generally determined by the source of funds used to develop the item, component, or process. When the technical data do not pertain to items, components, or processes, the scope of the license is determined by the source of funds used to create the data. ( 1 ) *Techical data pertaining to items, components, or processes.* Contractors or licensors may, with some exceptions (see 227.7103-5(a)(2) and (a)(4) through (9)), restrict the Government's rights to use, modify, release, reproduce, perform, display or disclose technical data pertaining to items, components, or processes developed exclusively at private expense (limited rights). They may not restrict the Government's rights in items, components, or processes developed exclusively at Government expense (unlimited rights) without the Government's approval. When an item, component, or process is developed with mixed funding, the Government may use, modify, release, reproduce, perform, display or disclose the data pertaining to such items, components, or processes within the Government without restriction but may release or disclose the data outside the Government only for government purposes (government purpose rights).
( 2 ) *Technical data that do not pertain to items, components, or processes.* Technical data may be created during the performance of a contract for a conceptual design or similar effort that does not require the development, manufacture, construction, or production of items, components or processes. The Government generally obtains unlimited rights in such data when the data were created exclusively with Government funds, government purpose rights when the data were created with mixed funding, and limited rights when the data were created exclusively at private expense.
( b ) *Source of funds determination.* The determination of the source of development funds for technical data pertaining to items, components, or processes should be made at any practical sub-item or subcomponent level or for any segregable portion of a process. Contractors may assert limited rights in a segregable sub-item, sub-component, or portion of a process which otherwise qualifies for limited rights under the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items.
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 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/ Douglas Stukel                         |   |   |
|      | Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer |   |   |
|      | April 17, 2007                             |   |   |
|           |                                            |        |  |  |

 

 

1
**Andre Hylton  -  Director**Andre.Hylton@ed.gov

**Catherine Hull  -  Cost Negotiator**Catherine.Hull@ed.gov

**Nelda Barnes - Cost Negotiator**Nelda.Barnes@ed.gov

**Kayon Graham - Cost Negotiator**Kayon.Graham@ed.gov

**Mary Gougisha - Cost Negotiator**Mary.Gougisha@ed.gov

**Anthony Johnson - Cost Negotiator**Anthony.Johnson@ed.gov

**Chanell Armstrong - Cost Negotiator**Chanell.Armstrong@ed.gov** **

**Lucia Van Gieson - Cost Negotiator**Lucia.Vangieson@ed.gov

Office Email Address (Send questions to):IndirectCostDivision@ed.gov
#### 228.106 Administration.
23.404 Environmental management systems. Agencies may implement an environmental management system (EMS) when it aligns with and supports its agency's mission needs and facilitates implementation and progress toward E.O. 14057 goals. If an agency uses an EMS for contractor operation of Government-owned or -leased facilities or vehicles, and contractor activities affect the agency's environmental management aspects— ( a ) EMS requirements shall be included in contracts to ensure proper implementation and execution of EMS roles and responsibilities; and
( b ) The contracting officer shall— ( 1 ) Specify the EMS directives with which the contractor must comply; and
( 2 ) Ensure contractor compliance to the same extent as the agency would be required to comply if the agency operated the facilities or vehicles.
22.1002-3 Wage determinations based on collective bargaining agreements. ( a ) Successor contractors performing on contracts in excess of $2,500 for substantially the same services performed in the same locality must pay wages and fringe benefits (including accrued wages and benefits and prospective increases) at least equal to those contained in any bona fide collective bargaining agreement entered into under the predecessor contract. This requirement is self-executing and is not contingent upon incorporating a wage determination or the wage and fringe benefit terms of the predecessor contractor's collective bargaining agreement in the successor contract. This requirement will not apply if the Secretary of Labor determines ( 1 ) after a hearing, that the wages and fringe benefits are substantially at variance with those which prevail for services of a similar character in the locality or
( 2 ) that the wages and fringe benefits are not the result of arm's length negotiations.
( b ) Paragraphs in this Subpart 22.10 which deal with this statutory requirement and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations are 22.1010, concerning notification to contractors and bargaining representatives of procurement dates; 22.1012-2, explaining when a collective bargaining agreement will not apply due to late receipt by the contracting officer; and 22.1013 and 22.1021, explaining when the application of a collective bargaining agreement can be challenged due to a variance with prevailing rates or lack of arm's length bargaining.
[54 FR 19816, May 8, 1989, as amended at 59 FR 67039, Dec. 28, 1994; 71 FR 36932, June 28, 2006]
Section V.B.

Significant Disproportionality Reporting Form

Section A: Minimum N-Sizes

1. No

2. Yes

2a. Yes

Table 1: 

Minimum 

N-Size Rationale

30 Based on federal guidance and stakeholder input, New Hampshire has 

determined a minimum N-size of 30 reasonable for our state.

Section B: Minimum Cell Sizes

3. Yes

3a. Yes

Table 3: 

Minimum 

Cell Size Rationale

10 Based on federal guidance and stakeholder input, New Hampshire has 

determined a minimum cell size of 10 reasonable for our state.

Section C: Risk Ratio Thresholds

4. Yes

Table 5: 

Risk Ratio 

Threshold Rationale

3.50

Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.646 and with stakeholder input New Hampshire has 

determined reasonable the threshold above which disproportionality is 

significant at 3.50.

Section D: Reasonable Progress

5. Yes

5a. Yes

Table 7: 

Standard Rationale

10% rate of decrease year 

to year over 3 years

Based on federal guidance and stakeholder input, New Hampshire 

has determined a reasonable progress of 10% rate of decrease 

reasonable for our state.
Section E; Number of Years of Data

6. Yes

Table 9: 

Number of Years of Data Used

3
#### Mary Diamond et al., Appellants, v. City of New York, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, made May 12, 1964 upon reconsideration, which adhered to the original decision and denied their motion for a preference in trial, pursuant to the rules of this court regu*695lating such preferences. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to grant the motion on the ground that, in view of the uncontradicted proof submitted by plaintiffs, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the preference.
#### 225.802-71 End use certificates.

Contracting officers considering the purchase of an item from a foreign source may encounter a request for the signing of a certificate to indicate that the Armed Forces of the United States is the end user of the item, and that the U.S. Government will not transfer the item to third parties without authorization from the Government of the country selling the item. When encountering this situation, refer to DoD Directive 2040.3, End Use Certificates, for guidance.
243.204-71 Certification of requests for equitable adjustment. ( a ) A request for equitable adjustment to contract terms that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold may not be paid unless the contract certifies the request in accordance with the clause at 252.243-7002.
( b ) To determine if the dollar threshold for requiring certification is met, add together the absolute value of each cost increase and each cost decrease. See PGI 243.204-71(b) for an example.
( c ) The certification required by 10 U.S.C. 3862(a), as implemented in the clause at 252.243-7002, is different from the certification required by 41 U.S.C. 7103, Disputes. If the contractor has certified a request for equitable adjustment in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3862(a), and desires to convert the request to a claim under the Contract Disputes statute, the contractor shall certify the claim in accordance with FAR subpart 33.2.
[62 FR 37147, July 11, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 11541, Mar. 9, 1998; 70 FR 67922, Nov. 9, 2005; 76 FR 58137, Sept. 20, 2011; 76 FR 76320, Dec. 7, 2011; 77 FR 35881, June 15, 2012; 87 FR 76996, Dec. 16, 2022]
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We  consent to  the incorporation  by reference  in the  Annual Report (Form
10-K) of U.S. Healthcare, Inc. of our report dated February 2, 1996, included in
the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders of U.S. Healthcare, Inc.
 
    Our  audits  also  included  the   financial  statement  schedule  of   U.S.
Healthcare,  Inc. listed in  Item 14(a). This schedule  is the responsibility of
the Company's management.  Our responsibility is  to express an  opinion on  the
schedule  based on our audits. In  our opinion, the financial statement schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly  in all material respects the information  set
forth therein.
 
    We  consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of U.S. Healthcare, Inc. pertaining to the 1982 Incentive Stock Option Plan  and
the  Second  Incentive  Stock  Option  Plan (Form  S-8  No.  2-91754);  the U.S.
Healthcare, Inc.  Savings Plan  (Form S-8  No. 33-36049);  the Second  Incentive
Stock  Option  Plan,  the  Third  Incentive  Stock  Option  Plan  and  the  1987
Non-Statutory Option Plan  (Form S-8  No. 33-26157); the  U.S. Healthcare,  Inc.
Incentive  Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-80632); and  the registration of shares of U.S.
Healthcare, Inc. common  stock under various  non-statutory stock option  grants
and  for the registration  of 187,073 shares (as  adjusted to reflect subsequent
stock splits) of U.S. Healthcare, Inc.  common stock (Form S-3 No. 33-14653)  of
our  report dated February  2, 1996, with respect  to the consolidated financial
statements of  U.S. Healthcare,  Inc. incorporated  by reference  in the  Annual
Report  (Form  10-K)  for the  year  ended  December 31,  1995  and  the related
financial statement schedule included therein.
 
                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 1996
 
                                       42
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BRIDGFORD FOODS CORPORATION FOR THE THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED
JANUARY 30, 1998, AS SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-Q FOR SUCH QUARTER, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      18,034,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,691,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                   566,395
<INVENTORY>                                 12,585,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,803,408
<PP&E>                                      42,491,673
<DEPRECIATION>                              26,222,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              65,725,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,909,048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,393,298
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,276,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                65,725,472
<SALES>                                     35,475,404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,475,404
<CGS>                                       22,208,832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,208,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,543,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                31,038
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,722,862
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,035,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,687,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,687,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
Order issued Noveiiiher ,2012

In The

Qtourt nf Appiat

3FiftI 11iitrirt nf rxaa at 3atkta

No. 05-1 2-00427-CR

JOSHUA O’NEAL WHiTE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

ORDER

Before Justices Richter, Lang-Miers, and Myers

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the September 5, 2012 motion of

Deborah Ellison Farris for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to remove Deborah Ellison Farris as counsel of record for appellant. We

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to

Joshua O’Neal White, No. 12011949, Dallas County Jail, P.O. Box 660334, Dallas, Texas,

75266-0334.

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001

Geological Interpretation of the Sea Floor Offshore of Edgartown, Massachusetts

Title | List of Figures | Conversion Factors | Abstract | Introduction | Setting | Methods | Bathymetry | Sidescan Sonar | Seismic Profiles | Sediments | Bottom Photography | Data Catalog | Summary | Acknowledgments | References Cited | Contacts

Figure 15. Locations of stations at which bottom samples and       photographs were taken during cruise 08012 of research vessel       Rafael to verify acoustic data. 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/fig15.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:26:51 EDT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 19 AND 20 OF THE COMPANY'S 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         141,407
<SECURITIES>                                    82,370
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     51,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               392,289
<PP&E>                                          41,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 484,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,051
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       152,756
<OTHER-SE>                                     212,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   484,419
<SALES>                                        403,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               403,170
<CGS>                                          166,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               145,097
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 98,851
<INCOME-TAX>                                    37,563
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             61,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    61,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.92
        

</TABLE>
1832.908 Contract clauses. ( c ) ( 2 ) When the clause at FAR 52.232-25, Prompt Payment, is used in such contracts with the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC), insert “17th” in lieu of “30th” in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and (B) and (a)(1)(ii).
[81 FR 63145, Sept. 14, 2016, as amended at 81 FR 71638, Oct. 18, 2016]
1845.505-70 Responsibilities of the property administrator. ( c ) When the property administrator determines that all or a portion of a contractor's property management practices and processes do not afford sufficient protection against loss, damage or destruction of Government property: ( 1 ) The property administrator shall increase surveillance to prevent, to the extent possible, any loss, damage, or destruction of Government property; and
( 2 ) Advise the contracting officer of any known or reported incidence of loss, damage or destruction identified during any period in which the contracting officer has revoked the Government's acceptance of risk.
( d ) The property administrator shall review records and the results of contractor actions to identify any and all incidence where the contractor fails to report property no longer required for performance for periods longer than called for in their standards and practices.
#### 2452.222-70 Accessibility of meetings, conferences, and seminars to persons with disabilities.

As prescribed in 2422.1408(c), insert the following clause in all solicitations and contracts:

# Accessibility of Meetings, Conferences, and Seminars to Persons With Disabilities (FEB 2006)

The contractor shall assure that any meeting, conference, or seminar held pursuant to the contract meets all applicable standards for accessibility to persons with disabilities pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and any implementing regulations of the Department. The contractor shall be responsible for ascertaining the specific accessibility needs (e.g., sign language interpreters) for each meeting, conference, or seminar in light of the known or anticipated attendees.

(End of clause)

[71 FR 2440, Jan. 13, 2006]