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

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin J. Reinhart, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nexen
Inc., a Canadian  Corporation  (the  "Company")  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended  September  30,  2009 as filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
      Commission  on the date  hereof (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 78o(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.



Date:  November 3, 2009

                                        /s/ Kevin J. Reinhart
                                        ---------------------
                                        Kevin J. Reinhart
                                        Senior Vice President
                                        and Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and  furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Functional Statements > Office               of Legislative and Congressional Affairs

## V. Primary Delegations of Authority 

The Secretary has delegated the following authorities to the Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs, subject to certain reservations:- Authority to carry out the Congressional relations functions of the Department.
- Authority to sign Federal Register notices other than policy statements and interpretations, including notices of meetings and workshops.
  Last Modified: 05/01/2020
#### Rhoda Dym, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Morris Gordon, Appellant.

— In an action to recover damages for injury to person, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 28, 1964 upon the court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff Rhoda Dym after a nonjury trial. The action on behalf of the plaintiff Norman Dym was discontinued. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and complaint dismissed, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. The female plaintiff, a gratuitous guest in defendant’s automobile, was injured in Colorado when the automobile passed a stop sign and collided with another vehicle operated by a man who was apparently a resident of Kansas. The said plaintiff and the defendant were and are residents of New York. The defendant had driven his vehicle to Colorado and the plaintiff had come to Colorado by bus. The automobile trip involved 'herein began and was scheduled to terminate in Colorado, without the crossing of the State borders. The Colorado Guest Statute (Rev. Stat., § 13-9-1) provides that “No person transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as his guest, without payment for such transportation, shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury, death, or loss in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been intentional on the part of such owner or operator or caused by his intoxication, or by negligence consisting of a willful and wanton disregard of the rights of others.” If that statute, rather than the common law of New York, is applicable, the plaintiff could not recover unless she established that the accident was intentional on the part of the defendant or was caused by his intoxication or by negligence consisting of a willful and wanton disregard of the rights of others — matters which she did not establish. The trial court held that evaluation of the contacts and interests of New York and Colorado dictated that New York’s host-guest policy be applied and that the temporary residence of both parties did not alter the *“*center of gravity ” doctrine sufficiently to warrant application of the Colorado statute (41 Misc *7032d 657, appeal to this court dismissed on motion, Feb. 3, 1964). Under Colorado’s Guest Statute, the manner of the defendant’s operation of his vehicle was an important issue (cf. *Babcock*v. *Jackson,*12 N Y 2d 473, 478). In our opinion, under the circumstances herein, it was Colorado, the place where the parties resided, albeit temporarily, where their guest-host relationship arose and where the trip began and was to end, rather than New York, the place of their permanent domiciles, which had the dominant contacts and the superior claims for application of its law (cf. *Babcock*v. *Jackson,*supra;*White v. MVAIC,*39 Misc 2d 678, 685). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 252.209-7007 Prohibited Financial Interests for Lead System Integrators.

As prescribed in 209.570-4(b), use the following clause:

# Prohibited Financial Interests for Lead System Integrators (DEC 2022)

(a) *Definitions.* As used in this clause—

(1) *Lead system integrator* includes *lead system integrator with system responsibility* and *lead system integrator without system responsibility.*

(2) *Lead system integrator with system responsibility* means a prime contractor for the development or production of a major system, if the prime contractor is not expected at the time of award to perform a substantial portion of the work on the system and the major subsystems.

(3) *Lead system integrator without system responsibility* means a prime contractor under a contract for the procurement of services, the primary purpose of which is to perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions (see section 7.503(d) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation) with respect to the development or production of a major system.

(b) *Limitations.* The Contracting Officer has determined that the Contractor meets the definition of lead system integrator with [ ] without [ ] system responsibility. Unless an exception is granted, the Contractor shall not have any direct financial interest in the development or construction of any individual system or element of any system of systems while performing lead system integrator functions in the acquisition of a major system by the Department of Defense under this contract.

(c) *Agreement.* The Contractor agrees that during performance of this contract it will not acquire any direct financial interest as described in paragraph (b) of this clause, or, if it does acquire or plan to acquire such interest, it will immediately notify the Contracting Officer. The Contractor further agrees to provide to the Contracting Officer all relevant information regarding the change in financial interests so that the Contracting Officer can determine whether an exception applies or whether the Contractor will be allowed to continue performance on this contract. If a direct financial interest cannot be avoided, eliminated, or mitigated to the Contracting Officer's satisfaction, the Contracting Officer may terminate this contract for default for the Contractor's material failure to comply with the terms and conditions of award or may take other remedial measures as appropriate in the Contracting Officer's sole discretion.

(d) Notwithstanding any other clause of this contract, if the Contracting Officer determines that the Contractor misrepresented its financial interests at the time of award or has violated the agreement in paragraph (c) of this clause, the Government may terminate this contract for default for the Contractor's material failure to comply with the terms and conditions of award or may take other remedial measures as appropriate in the Contracting Officer's sole discretion.

(e) This clause implements the requirements of10 U.S.C. 4292.

(End of clause)

[73 FR 1825, Jan. 10, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 34269, July 15, 2009; 87 FR 76996, Dec. 16, 2022]
225.7700 Scope. This subpart implements— ( a ) Section 892 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181);
( b ) Section 886 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181), as amended by section 842 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239);
( c ) Section 826 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239); and
( d ) The determinations by the Deputy Secretary of Defense regarding participation of the countries of the South Caucasus or Central and South Asia in acquisitions in support of operations in Afghanistan.
( e ) Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328).
[78 FR 59857, Sept. 30, 2013, as amended at 83 FR 16004, Apr. 13, 2018; 87 FR 15818, Mar. 18, 2022]
#### 252.236-7000 Modification proposals—price breakdown.

As prescribed in 236.570(a), use the following clause:

# Modification Proposals—Price Breakdown (DEC 1991)

(a) The Contractor shall furnish a price breakdown, itemized as required and within the time specified by the Contracting Officer, with any proposal for a contract modification.

(b) The price breakdown—

(1) Must include sufficient detail to permit an analysis of profit, and of all costs for—

(i) Material;

(ii) Labor;

(iii) Equipment;

(iv) Subcontracts; and

(v) Overhead; and

(2) Must cover all work involved in the modification, whether the work was deleted, added, or changed.

(c) The Contractor shall provide similar price breakdowns to support any amounts claimed for subcontracts.

(d) The Contractor's proposal shall include a justification for any time extension proposed.

(End of clause)
#### 252.215-7013 Supplies and Services Provided by Nontraditional Defense Contractors.

As prescribed in 215.408(6), use the following provision:

# Supplies and Services Provided by Nontraditional Defense Contractors (JAN 2023)

Offerors are advised that in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3457, supplies and services provided by a nontraditional defense contractor, as defined in DFARS 202.101, may be treated as commercial products or commercial services. The decision to apply commercial product or commercial service procedures to the procurement of supplies and services from a nontraditional defense contractor does not require a commercial item determination and does not mean the supplies or services are commercial.

(End of provision)

[83 FR 4447, Jan. 31, 2018, as amended at 83 FR 30825, June 29, 2018; 87 FR 76997, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 6590, Jan. 31, 2023]
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:47 PM

To: Hutson, Nick; Fruh, Steve; Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- 111(b) New-Mods RLSO 

from Friday 7/23

Attachments: SummaryofInteragencyCommentsUnderEO 12866_13563_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 

Final_7 26 2015.docx

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the latest version of the EPA 

final rule, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. 

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. 

Nathan
#### Patricia McCarthy, an Infant, by Catherine McCarthy, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Donald Edington et al., Defendants, County of Suffolk, Appellant.

In a negligence action, the defendant Suffolk County appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1963, which denied conditionally its cross motion to dismiss the action as against it for lack of prosecution. The record on appeal contains no such order. However, our examination of the original papers filed with this court reveals: (a) that a memorandum of the court’s *decision,*dated December 17, 1963, denying conditionally the defendant Suffolk County’s motion to dismiss, directed submission of an order to that effect, but that no such order of that date or otherwise appears to have been submitted or signed; (b) that instead, an order dated January 8, 1964 (which is the only order printed in the record) appears to have been entered in conformity with such decision; (c) that thereafter, an order dated May. 12, 1964 was entered, granting *plaintiffs’*motion for reargument and denying the county’s original cross motion *unconditionally,*and (d) that a notice of appeal from such latter order was duly filed, but such notice was not printed in the record. The appeal will be deemed to have been taken from the order of January 8, 1964. On this court’s own motion, pursuant to statute (CPLR 5517), the subsequent order, made May 12, 1964 on reargument, has been reviewed. Order of May 12, 1964 affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Appeal from order of January 8, 1964 dismissed as academic; that order was superseded by the later order of May 12, 1964. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
*Schools, districts, postsecondary institutions, and early learning centers do not apply to ED for this award, but instead apply to their state education authorities*. Candidates, including non-public, early learning, and charter schools, should contact their state departments of education or state higher education authorities for information on selection in each state. 

Department of Defense Education Activity and Bureau of Indian Education schools should contact their central administrative office. Schools based outside of the U.S. are not eligible for the ED-GRS award.

**K-12 State Contacts**

**Higher Education State Contacts**

**Email U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools**

**Facebook**

**X**

Please note: ED's award is called "U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools" and has "District Sustainability Award" and "Postsecondary Sustainability Award" categories.  "Green Ribbon Schools" without the "U.S. Department of Education" is not ED's award, but instead is a separate program overseen by another organization.
227.7203-11 Contractor procedures and records. ( a ) The clause at 252.227-7014, Rights in Other Than Commercial Computer Software and Other Than Commercial Computer Software Documentation, requires a contractor, and its subcontractors or suppliers that will deliver computer software or computer software documentation 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 restrictive markings.
( b ) The clause at 252.227-7019, Validation of Asserted Restrictions—Computer Software, requires contractors and their subcontractors or suppliers at any tier to maintain records sufficient to justify the validity of markings that assert restrictions on the use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of computer software.
[60 FR 33482, June 28, 1995, as amended at 88 FR 6587, Jan. 31, 2023]
**Program Office:** Higher Education Programs

**CFDA Number:** 84.915**Program Type:** Direct appropriation

Howard University was established in 1867 as a federally chartered, private, nonprofit educational institution. As a comprehensive, research-oriented, predominantly African-American university, its mission is to provide a high quality educational experience at a reasonable cost. The annual appropriation for Howard University provides partial support for construction, development, improvement, endowment, and maintenance of the university and the Howard University Hospital. Howard University has discretion in allocating funds for its academic, research, and endowment programs, and for its construction activities.

Funding supports three areas:

- Academic Programsacademic programs, research, and construction for the university, including a wide range of administrative, library, computer, and technology resources for the university.
- Endowment Programmatching support to Howard University's endowment, which assists the University in increasing its financial strength and independence by stimulating private contributions.
- Howard University Hospitala major acute and ambulatory care center as well as a teaching and training hospital for Washington, D.C.

|Last Modified: 04/22/2014
|-------------------------
Exhibit 32.1

       Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                 of Title 18 of the United States Code


I, Joseph F. Kruy, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
Cambex Corporation, certify that

(i) This quarterly report on Form 10QSB for the fiscal quarter ended July 4,
2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

(ii) The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Cambex Corporation.


Dated: August 10, 2004        /s/ Joseph F. Kruy
                             Joseph F. Kruy
                             President and Treasurer
                             [principal executive officer and
                              principal financial officer]


This certification accompanies this quarterly report pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Axcess International, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this annual report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report was prepared;
 b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report (the
Evaluation Date); and
 c)
    
    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN L. FRANKAllan L. Frank, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.3

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is filed with respect to the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended March 22, 2003 of
Dole Food Company, Inc. (the Issuer). I, David H. Murdock, Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my
knowledge:



| |      |                                                                                                                                                              
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i)  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Issuer.       

Dated: July 29, 2003

| |  |                                                     
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ DAVID H. MURDOCK                                
| |  |                                                     
| |  | David H. MurdockChairman and Chief Executive Officer
227.7009-4 Additional clauses—contracts providing for payment of a running royalty. The clauses set forth below are examples which may be used in patent release and settlement agreements, and license agreements, when it is desired to cover the subject matter thereof and the contract provides for payment of a running royalty. ( a ) *License grant—running royalty.* No Department shall be obligated to pay royalties unless the contract is signed on behalf of such Department. Accordingly, the License Grant clause at 252.227-7006 should be limited to the practice of the invention by or for the signatory Department or Departments.
( b ) *License term—running royalty.* The clause at 252.227-7007 is a sample form for expressing the license term.
( c ) *Computation of royalties.* The clause at 252.227-7008 providing for the computation of royalties, may be of varying scope depending upon the nature of the royalty bearing article, the volume of procurement, and the type of contract pursuant to which the procurement is to be accomplished.
( d ) *Reporting and payment of royalties.* ( 1 ) The contract should contain a provision specifying the office designated within the specific Department involved to make any necessary reports to the contractor of the extent of use of the licensed subject matter by the entire Department, and such office shall be charged with the responsibility of obtaining from all procuring offices of that Department the information necessary to make the required reports and corresponding vouchers necessary to make the required payments. The clause at 252.227-7009 is a sample for expressing reporting and payment of royalties requirements.
( 2 ) Where more than one Department or Government Agency is licensed and there is a ceiling on the royalties payable in any reporting period, the licensing Departments or Agencies shall coordinate with respect to the pro rata share of royalties to be paid by each.
( e ) *License to other government agencies.* When it is intended that a license on the same terms and conditions be available to other departments and agencies of the Government, the clause at 252.227-7010 is an example which may be used.